C.A. PIOUS versus THE STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 989 · Decided: 14-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

C.A. PIOUS 
A 
v. 
THE STA TE OF KERALA AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 14, 2007 
(DR.ARIJITPASAYAT ANDD.K.JAIN,JJ.) 
B 
Kera/a Prison Rules, 1958-r. 225 (2) and 461-Release on probation-
Of convict of life imprisonment-Denial of-On ground that he has not 
undergone custodial sentence of 8 years as per the Rules-Claim of the C 
convict for treating period of study leave as sentence undergone-Rejection 
of release confirmed by Courts below-On appeal, held: Release on probation 
was rightly denied-Study leave period cannot be treated as the sentence 
undergone-The cas~ of the convict can be considered in accordance with 
law, as and when he suffers actual custody of more than eight years-Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973-s. 432(6). 
D 
Appellant, undergoing life imprisonment, claimed for release on 
t-
probation under Kerala Prison Rules, 1958. The same was denied by State 
Government on the ground that he had not suffered eight years of custodial 
sentence as required under the Rules. He had undergone only 6 years 5 
months and 10 days of sentence. Appellant claimed that the period of study E 
leave i.e. 6 years 10 months and 10 days has to be reckoned while computing 
the period of sentence undergone. Single Judge as well as Division Bench of 
High Cqurt in respective Writ Petition and Writ Appeal, confirmed the 
rejection of claim. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1. In view of the clear position emitting from Rule 225 of Kerala 
Prison Rules, 1958, the High Court's judgment does not suffer from any 
infirmity that, to be entitled to benefit, convict has to suffer at least 8 years of 
custody. Rule 461 i.e. the provision for treatment of the period of leave as the G 
sentence undergone, cannot be made applicable to the study leave period. The 
same is abundantly clear from the fact that at the time of commencement of 
study leave, the sentence stands suspended whereas for the emergency leave 
. 
, 
_1 
or ordinary leave, the above suspension is not contemplated under Chapter 
989 
H 
990 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 9 S.C.R. 
A 26 of the Rules. It is also seen from Rule 453 that the period of emergency 
and ordinary leave are confined to a short period and the same is not granted 
-J:, 
continuously and also that a gap of six months is contemplated as per Rule 
452(8) for further release of a prisoner granting ordinary leave. Emergency 
leave vide Rule 455 is limited to extreme situations like death or serious 
illness. But so far as study leave is concerned, the same is granted somewhat 
B liberally. The appellant himself was outside the prison for more than six years. 
c 
He was outside the prison more than the period he spent inside. 
[Paras 8 and 6) (992-B, C, D, H; 993-A] 
Maru Ram v. Union of India and Ors., [1981) l SCC 107, referred to. 
2. As and when the appellant suffers actual custody of more than 8 years, 
let his case be considered in accordance with law by the concerned authorities. 
[Para 10) (996-FJ 
CRIMfNAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1222 of 
D 2001. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.02.2006 of the High Court of 
Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 2007 of2005. 
T.N. Singh, V.K. Singh and Rohit Pandey for the Appellant. 
G. Prakash for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
F 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench 
of the Kerala High Court dismissing the writ appeal filed by the appellant. 
· l. 
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
The appellant is suffering life imprisonment in Central Jail, Kannur in 
G view of the conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian 
Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). He made a claim before the State 
Government that the Kerala Prison Rules, 1958 (in short 'Rules') provide for 
releas~ on probation on completion of 8 years of custody. According to him 
the period of study leave amounting to 6 years I 0 months and 13 days have 
H to be reckoned while computing the period of sentence undergone. The 
.'r-
.> 
y 
.> 
~ . 
. i, 
•C.A.PIOUSv.STATEOFKERALA [PASAYAT,J.] 
991 
prayer was rejected on the ground that the writ petitioner had not suffered A 
8 years of custodial sentence and, in fact, he had undergone imprisonment 
for 6 years, 3 months and 25 days to which the remand period of I month 
and 17 days is to be added making a total of 6 years 5 months and I 0 days. 
The High Court found
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.