A.K. Patnaik, C.J.
1. The two appeals have been filed under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 18247/2006 and W.P. No. 7392/2007 on 27-8-2007.
2. The appellant in W.A. No. 1428/2007 was convicted under Section 302/149, IPC and sentenced to RI for life in Sessions Trial No. 203 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore on 1-1 -2005. After completion of 2 years and two months and 20 days of imprisonment, the appellant filed an application for parole but the Collector, Sehore by order dated 21-8-2006 rejected the application. Aggrieved, the appellant filed W.P. No. 18247/2006 against the order of rejection of his application for parole, but by the impugned order dated 27-8-2007 the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition after holding that the reasons assigned in the impugned order rejecting the application for parole were good reasons.
3. The appellant in W.A. No. 1429/2007 was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol on 13-3-1999. After completing more than two years of imprisonment, the appellant filed an application for parole but the application was rejected by order dated 16-11-2006. The appellant filed W.P. No. 7392 of 2007 but by the impugned order dated 27-8-2007, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition after holding that there is no illegality found in the order rejecting the application for parole.
4. Mr. D.D. Bhargava, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that in a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ganga Charan v. Stale of M.P. and Ors. 1994 JLJ 795, it has been held that full information regarding the character of the crime committed by the applicant, his conduct in prison and the probability of his reverting after release to criminal habits or instigating others to commit crime is required to be considered under Rule 358 of the Madhya Pradesh Prisons Rules, 1968, but in this case the orders of rejection would show that these factors have not been considered by the authority while rejecting the application for parole. He also cited the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Jeewan Singh Verma v. State of M.P and Anr. 2001(5) M.P.H.T. 386 : 2002(1) MPLJ 347 and submitted that the conduct of the applicant in the prison has to be considered while considering the application for parole. Mr. Bhargava argued that since the conduct of the appellants in prison has not been considered by the authorities, the orders of rejection passed in both these cases are bad in law.
5. The Prisoners Act, 1900 as amended by The Prisoners (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1985, has made provisions in Part VI-A on leave and emergency leave to prisoners. In Part VI-A, Section 31A provides for grant of leave to prisoners and Section 31B provides for power to grant leave to prisoners on the ground of emergency. Since the appellant in this case has not applied for parole on any ground of emergency, Section 31-B is not relevant case and instead Section 31-A is relevant for deciding this case. Sub-section (1) of Section 31-A is quoted hereinbelow:
31-A. Grant of leave to Prisoners.- (1) Subject to the provisions to this part and to such conditions as may be prescribed, the State Government or any authority to which the State Government may delegate its powers in this behalf may grant leave to any prisoner who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than three years for a period not exceeding twenty-one days in a year, excluding the time required for journeys to the first place of his visit immediate after departure from the prison and from the place of last visit to the person back.
6. A reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 31 -A of the Prisoners Act, 1900 as-amended by The Prisoners (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1985 quoted above would show that leave can be granted to prisoners under the said provision subject to the provisions of Part VI-A as well as such conditions as may be prescribed. Section 31-E is titled 'power to make rules' and Sub-section (1) of Section 31-E provides that the State Government may make rules for carrying out the purposes of Part VI-A and Sub-section (2) of Section 31-E states that in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the power under Sub-section (1), such rules may provide for all or any of the matters mentioned therein. Under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 31-E, the State Government may make rules providing the conditions for grant of leave under Sub-section (1) of Section 31-A In exercise of such power under Section 31-E, the State Government has made the Madhya Pradesh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules, 1989'). Rule 4 of the Rules, 1989 read as follows:
4. Conditions of Leave.- The prisoners shall be granted leave under Sub-section (1) of Section 31-A of the Act on the following conditions, namely:
(a) He fulfills the conditions laid down in Section 31-A of the Act;
(b) He has not committed any offences in jail between the date of application for leave and receipt of the order of such leave;
(c) The Releasing Authority must be satisfied that the leave may be granted without detriment to the public interest;
(d) He gives in writing to the Releasing Authority the place or places which he intends to visit during the period of his leave and undertake not to visit any other place during such period without obtaining prior permission of the Releasing Authority in that behalf; and
(e) He should furnish security to the satisfaction of the Releasing Authority if such security is demanded by the Releasing Authority.
7. It will be clear from Clause (c) of Rule 4 quoted above that the prisoners shall be granted leave under Sub-section (1) of Section 31 -A of the Act if the Releasing Authority is satisfied that leave may be granted without detriment to the public interest. In other words, where the Releasing Authority is of the opinion that leave if granted to the prisoners would be detrimental to the public interest, he may reject the application for leave. In the present two cases, on a reading of the orders passed by the Releasing Authority rejecting the applications of the appellants for parole, we find that the Releasing Authority has taken a view that if the appellants are released, the peace in the village/ community to which they belong will be in danger. The rejection of the applications for paroles of the appellants in the two cases by the Releasing Authority therefore is in accord with the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 31-A read with Rule 4 of the Rules, 1989.
8. In the Full Bench judgment in Ganga Charan v. State of M.P. and Ors. (supra), cited by Mr. Bhargava, reliance has been placed on the Madhya Pradesh Prisons Rules, 1968 and in particular Rule 358 thereof which required consideration of full information regarding the character of the crime committed by the prisoner, his conduct in prison and the probability of his reverting after release to criminal habits or instigating others to commit crime. Rule 358 of the Madhya Pradesh Prison Rules, 1968 have been replaced in so far as leave to prisoners are concerned by the Rules, 1989. After the Rules, 1989 have come into force, the Releasing Authority will have to be guided by Rule 4 of the Rules, 1989 while considering grant of leave under Sub-section (1) of Section 31-A of the Prisoners Act, 1900 as amended by the Prisoners (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1985.
9. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in Jeewan Singh Verma v. State of M.P. and Anr. (supra), cited by Mr. Bhargava, the learned Single Judge has found that the convict in that case was the only son of his mother who was ill and therefore held that refusal to grant parole on a specious plea that he will get himself involved in similar crime, without indicating any kind of antecedent or any other essential facts and accordingly directed the authorities to extend the privilege of temporary release/parole as per law to the son of the petitioner in that case. This was thus a case of a release of parole on the ground of illness of the mother of the prisoner. No such case has been made out by the appellant for release on parole in the present two cases.
10. We therefore, do not find any merit in the two appeals and we dismiss the same.