ROHAN DHUNGAT ETC. versus THE STATE OF GOA & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 1029 · Decided: 05-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1029
1029
ROHAN DHUNGAT ETC.
v.
THE STATE OF GOA & ORS. ETC.
(Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.12574-12577 of 2022)
JANUARY 05, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Goa Prisons Rules, 2006 – r. 335 – Whether the period of
parole is to be excluded from the period of sentence under Rules of
2006 while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment for the
purpose of premature release – Held: r. 335 of the Rules, 2006
provides that the period of release on Furlough and Parole shall be
counted as remission of sentence – Once the period of parole is to
be counted as remission of sentence, the period of parole is also
required to be excluded from the period of sentence while
considering 14 years of actual imprisonment.
Parole – Object and purpose – discussed.
Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, the Court
HELD: 1. While considering the question/issue ‘Whether
the period of parole is to be excluded from the period of sentence
under Rules of 2006 while considering 14 years of actual
imprisonment for the purpose of premature release ?’, the object
and purpose of parole is required to be taken into consideration.
Parole is a conditional release. Parole can be granted in case of
short-term imprisonment. Duration of parole extends to one
month. Parole is granted by the State Government. For parole,
specific reason is required. Parole can be granted for number of
times. [Para 5][1032-G]
2. The High Court while passing the impugned judgment
and order and taking the view that the period of parole is to be
excluded from the period of sentence while considering 14 years
of actual imprisonment has heavily relied upon or considered Rule
335 of the Rules, 2006 which provides that the period of release
on Furlough and Parole “shall be counted as remission of
sentence ….”. Once the period of parole is to be counted as
remission of sentence, as rightly observed and held by the High
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 1029
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1030
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
Court, the period of parole is also required to be excluded from
the period of sentence while considering 14 years of actual
imprisonment. [Para 7.1][1033-B-D]
3. If the submission on behalf of the prisoners that the
period of parole is to be included while considering 14 years of
actual imprisonment is accepted, in that case, any prisoner who
may be influential may get the parole for number of times as
there is no restrictions and it can be granted number of times
and if the submission on behalf of the prisoners is accepted, it
may defeat the very object and purpose of actual imprisonment.
This Court is of the firm view that for the purpose of considering
actual imprisonment, the period of parole is to be excluded. [Para
10][1034-C-D]
Sunil Fulchand Shah vs. Union of India (2000) 3 SCC
409 : [2000] 1 SCR 945; Avtar Singh vs. State of
Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 409 : [2000] 1 SCR 945 – held
inapplicable.
Case Law Reference
[2000] 1 SCR 945
held inapplicable
Para 8
[2000] 1 SCR 945
held inapplicable
Para 8.1
EXTRA ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special
Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.12574-12577 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.08.2022 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay at Goa in CRLWP Nos.466, 467, 471 and 472
of 2021.
Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Shivraj Gaonkar, Ms. Aarushi Singh,
Advs. for the Petitioners.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Criminal Writ
Petition Nos. 466 of 2021, 467 of 2021, 471 of 2021 and 472 of 2021
dated 03.08.2022, by which, the High Court has dismissed the said writ
petitions holding that the period of Parole is to be excluded from the
period of sentence while considering the 14 years to actual imprisonment
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1031
for the purpose of premature release, the original writ petitioners have
preferred the present Special Leave Petitions.
2. That the original petitioners are all convicts undergoing life
imprisonment. That all of them were released on parole under the
provisions of Goa Prisons Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the
“Rules, 2006”). That all the original petitioners applied for premature
release under the Rules, 2006. The State Sentence Revenue Board
recommended for premature release. The State Government sought
opinion of the convicting Court on the premature release of the petitioners.
The convicting Court opined that the convicts shall not be released
pr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.