Bombay High Court categorizes inmates that can be granted with emergency parole
While hearing a petition by an inmate who was seeking parole on the basis of spread of the covid 19 in jails observed that the High Courts must use their discretion while granting parole to individuals charged under offences of special acts. In the present matter of Pintu S/o. Uttam Sonale (C-10855) versus The State of Maharashtra, [CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (STAMP) No.3206 of 2020], the appellant was charged under sections 3,4 and 5 of the POCSO Act prayed for parole contending that the recent amendment brought about to Rule 19 (1) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, allowed for release of convicted prisoners on emergency parole under sub rule ( C) of Rule 19 (1), which was in pursuance of the notification issued by the State Government under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. The Court set up a high power committee while using its discretionary powers made two categories of people/ inmates who could be released on emergency parole- “ The convicted prisoners whose maximum sentence is above 7 years shall on their application be appropriately considered for release on emergency parole, if the convict has returned to prison on time on last 2 releases (whether on parole or furlough), for a period of 45 days or till such time that the State Government withdraws the Notification under The Epidemics Act, 1897, whichever is earlier.  The aforesaid directions shall not apply to under trial prisoners or convicted prisoners booked for serious economic offences / bank scams and offences under Special Acts (other than IPC) like MCOC, PMLA, MPID, NDPS, UAPA, etc., (which provide for additional restrictions on grant of bail in addition to those under Crpc) AND also presently to foreign nationals and prisoners having their place of residence out of the State of Maharashtra.” The Committee referred that “an exception be made to grant interim bail to the under trial who fell in the following categories of offences: (1) Indian Penal Code a) IPC – Chapter VI –Offenses against State– IPC 121 to 130 b) IPC – 303 c) IPC – 364(A), 366, 366(A), 366(B), 367 to 374 d) IPC – 376(t) to (e) e) IPC – 396 f) IPC 489(a) to (e) g) Bank Frauds and Major Financial Scams (2) SPECIAL ACTS a) MCOC, TADA, POTA, UAPA, PMLA, Explosives Substances Act, Anti Hijacking Act b) NDPS (Other than personal consumption) c) MPID d) POCSO e) Foreigners in Prison”. The Court stated that “We cannot be unmindful that the Special Acts so mentioned in the proviso if read applying the principles of ejusdem generis, the common thread running through all these enactments is of the offences committed under these enactments being serious offences, affecting the society at large. This is the primary and principal focus to provide for the illustrative names of the special acts and to keep open inclusion of several other enactments which may be alike and dealing with serious offences. In our opinion, no other meaning can be attributed when the intention of the proviso itself is to keep open inclusion of other special acts without they being specifically referred in the proviso.” Also that “In our clear opinion the Special Acts like POCSO and/or TADA are certainly required to be read in the proviso so as to make sub-rule (C) (ii) inapplicable to the category of convicts falling therein”.
Criwpst 3206 20 full bench.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITIONNo.32020 Pintu S o. Uttam SonaleAge: 31 years Occ.: convict R o.Mantha Tal. Hathgaon Dist.Nanded at present confined at Central Prison Nasik The State of Maharashtra through Superintendent Nasik Central Prison Nasik) Mr.Rupesh Jaiswal for Petitioner Mr.Deepak Thakare PP with Mr.J.P. Yagnik APP for State G.S. KULKARNI N. R. BORKAR JJ DATED : NOVEMBER 6 2020 Judgment :parole. The petitioner is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 4 and 5 of the Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act 2012 of the Maharashtra Prisons Prashant Rane PS Criwpst 3206 20 full bench.odt Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959 effected vide Government Notification dated 8 May 2020. By this amendment sub ruleof Rule 19(1) came to be incorporated so as to make a provision for release of convicted prisoners on emergency parole which was in pursuance of the notification issued by the State Government under the Epidemic Diseases Act 1897 The petition was heard by the Division Bench of this Court which noted different orders passed by the co ordinate Benches on similar pleas and more particularly in the following cases: i) Vijendra Malaram Ranwa vs. State of ii) Sardar s o. Shawali Khan Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.1 Maharashtra & Anr2 of Maharashtra3 iii) Shubham s o. Devidas Gajbhare Vs. The State iv) Kalyan s o. Bansidharrao Renge Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr.4 The Division Bench considering the above decisions as also the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in National Alliance for People’s Movements vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.5 was of the opinion that there is an apparent conflict in the decision rendered by the Division Bench in Vijendra Malaram Ranwacase and the one decided by the co ordinate Bench in the case of Sardar s o. Shawali 1 Cri.LD VC WP no.112 2020 Nagpur Bench dt.14.07.2020 2 Cri.WP no.520 2020dt.09.09.2020 3 Cri.WP.no.1135 2020(Aurangabad Bench) dt.13.10.2020 4 Cri.WP no.ASDB LD VC 265 2020 order dt.28.8.2020 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 843 Prashant Rane PS Criwpst 3206 20 full bench.odt KhanAct as incorporated by a Notification dated 8 May 2020. However in these cases the concerned Division Benches resorted to different interpretations of the proviso incorporated under sub rule 19(1)(C)(ii). In Vijendra Malaram Ranwa’scase the Division Bench observed that considering the language of the proviso an emergency parole can be granted to the petitioner convicted under the POCSO Act whereas in Sardar s o. Shawali Khancase the Division Bench also interpreting the said proviso did not accept that the case of the petitioner would be covered for grant of emergency parole On the above backdrop the Division Bench hearing the present writ petition opined that there is a conflict in these two decisions of the Division Bench and a reference of the petition to a full bench was necessitated. The observations of the Division Bench in paragraphs 19 to 21 are required to be noted which read thus: “19. We are of the opinion that the decision rendered in the case of National Alliance for People s Movementsof the paragraph 22 it is mentioned that the POCSO Act was enacted to protect children from offences of sexual assault sexual harassment and pornography and provide for establishment of Special Courts for trial of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The purpose for which TADA was enacted as the Special Act is also discussed No doubt Vijendra Malaram Ranwa s case dealt with the offences punishable under POCSO Act whereas Sardar s o. Shawali Khan dealt with offences punishable under TADA. Both being special Acts we find conflicting decisions in Vijendra Malaram Ranwa & Sardar s o. Shawali Khan . In view of this conflict a reference of the present Petition to a Full Bench is necessitated. The issue whether a prisoner convicted under the Special Act viz. POCSO Act is eligible to be released on emergency parole in terms of Rule 19(c) of the said Rules in our opinion needs to be authoritatively settled in view of the difference of opinion. The office to place the matter before the Hon ble Chief Justice on the administrative side.” In pursuance of the above order of the Division Bench Hon’ble Chief Justice was pleased to constitute the present Full Bench By our order dated 3 November 2020 we have framed the following questions which would arise for determination of this Larger Bench: “(i) Which of the interpretation of Rule 19(1) sub ruleas brought about by the Maharashtra PrisonsRules 2020 either as made in decision of the Division Bench in Vijendra Malaram Ranwa vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr or the decision of the Division Bench in Sardar s o Shawali Khan vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr is the correct interpretation ii) Whether the provisions of ‘emergency parole’ as brought about by the amendment to Rule 19by insertion of sub ruleby the Maharashtra PrisonsRules 2020 would cover prisoners convicted under the provisions of the Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act 2012 No.20) in the light of the health crises arising due to Corona Virus COVID 19) raised a concern interaila with the state of the inmates of ‘prisons’ and ‘remand homes’ so that care can be taken for protection and welfare of the prisoners to restrict transmission of COVID 19. The Court considered the issue of overcrowding of prisons as a matter of serious concern in the context of the present pandemic. Having regard to the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India it was observed that it had become imperative to ensure that spread of corona virus within the prison is controlled. The Supreme Court accordingly directed the State Union Territories to constitute a High Powered Committee comprising of Chairman of the State Legal Services Prashant Rane PS Criwpst 3206 20 full bench.odt Committee the Principal Secretary (iii) Director General of Prison to determine which class of prisoners can be released on parole or an interim bail for such period as may be thought appropriate. The Court left it open to the High Power Committee to determine the category of prisoners who should be released on parole or on interim bail depending upon the nature of the offences the number of years to which he or she has been sentenced or the severity of the offence with which he she is charged with and is facing trial or any other relevant factor which the Committee may consider In pursuance of the above directions of the Supreme Court the State Government on 25 March 2020 constituted a High Power Committee. The High Power Committee held its meeting on 25 March 2020 interalia determining “which class of prisoners can be released on parole or on interim bail” for such period as may be thought appropriate and “the category of prisoners who should be released” After considering all the relevant factors as also the circumstances prevailing in the State of Maharashtra the Committee interalia laid down the following norms the relevant being in paragraph 8(iii) and iv) which read thus: Prashant Rane PS Criwpst 3206 20 full bench.odt “iii) The convicted prisoners whose maximum sentence is above 7 years shall on their application be appropriately considered for release on emergency parole if the convict has returned to prison on time on last 2 releases for a period of 45 days or till such time that the State Government withdraws the Notification under The Epidemics Act 1897 whichever is earlier. The initial period of 45 days shall stand extended periodically in blocks of 30 days each till such that the said Notification is issued in the event the said Notification is not issued within the first 45 days). The convicted prisoners shall report to the concerned police station within whose jurisdiction they are residing once every 30 days iv) The aforesaid directions shall not apply to undertrial prisoners or convicted prisoners booked for serious economic offences bank scams and offences under Special Actslike MCOC PMLA MPID NDPS UAPA etc. AND also presently to foreign nationals and prisoners having their place of residence out of the State On 8 May 2020 the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Clauseand Clauseof Section 59 of the Prisons Act notified the Maharashtra Prisons Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 2020 so as to incorporate an amendment to sub ruleof Rule 19 by insertion of clauseso as to make a provision for ‘emergency parole’ in view of the declaration by the State Government of a pandemic under the Epidemic Diseases Act 1897. The amendment so made by incorporating rule along with a proviso and its interpretation is the principal controversy. Rule 19(A)as inserted by the amendment is required to be noted which reads thus: Prashant Rane PS Criwpst 3206 20 full bench.odt “[19. When a prisoner may be released on emergency 1) Emergency Parole C) On declaration of epidemic under the Epidemic Diseases Act 1897 by State Government i) For convicted Prisoners whose maximum punishment is 7 years or less on their application shall be favourably considered for release on emergency parole by the Superintendent of Prison for a period of 45 days or till such time that the State Government withdraws the Notification issued under the Epidemics Diseases Act 1897 whichever is earlier. The initial period of 45 days shall stand extended periodically in blocks of 30 days each till such time that the said Notification is in forceFor convicted prisoners whose maximum sentence is above 7 years shall on their application be appropriately considered for release on emergency parole by Superintendent of Prison if the convict has returned to prison on time on last 2 release for the period of 45 days or till such time that the State Government withdraws the Notification issued under the Epidemics Diseases Act 1897 whichever is earlier. The initial period of 45 days shall stand extended periodically in blocks of 30 days each till such time that the said Notification is in forcelike MCOC PMLA MPID NDPS UAPA etc.and also presently to foreign nationals and prisoners having their place of residence out of the State of Maharashtra.” of the minutes of the said meeting the Committee referred that an exception be made to grant interim bail to the under trial who fell in the following categories of offences 1) Indian Penal Code a) IPC Chapter VI Offenses against State IPC 121 to IPC 303 IPC 364(A) 366 366(A) 366(B) 367 to 374 IPC 376(t) totoSPECIAL ACTS MCOC TADA POTA UAPA PMLA Explosives Substances Act Anti Hijacking Act NDPSc) d) e) f) g) On the above conspectus the issue which arises before us is in regard to the interpretation of the proviso to sub ruleof Rule Prashant Rane PS Criwpst 3206 20 full bench.odt 19(1) namely as to whether the provisions of sub rulewould be applicable to the prisoners convicted for serious offences under Special Acts other than those specified in the proviso namely the POSCO in the present case. This more particularly when the proviso uses the words “like” and “etc.” As noted above the Division Bench in Vijendra Malaram Ranwadealing was with the case of the petitioner who was convicted of offences under Section 6 10 12 of POCSO Act and Section 77(1) and 77(2) of the Indian Navy Act. The Division Bench noting the language of the proviso held that there should not be any impediment for releasing the petitioner on parole. In paragraphof its order the Court observed as under: Considering the language of proviso of Notification dated 8th May 2020 and particularly in view of the fact that the offence under the POCSO Act is not mentioned in the proviso which bars for grant of parole there should not be any impediment in releasing the petitioner on parole.” In Sardar s o. Shawali Khan’ case another Division Bench in which the petitioner was convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive ActivitiesActhowever opined that the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of amended sub rule C) in Rule 19(1) of 1959 Rules. It was observed that although TADA Prashant Rane PS Criwpst 3206 20 full bench.odt was not mentioned in the proviso nonetheless considering the nature of the Special Acts as set out in the proviso a list of which was not exhaustive other special enactments which are similar in nature can be considered and authority would have power to observe that the TADA convicted would not get benefit of the Government Notification dated 8 May 2020. The following observations as made by their Lordships are required to be noted which reads thus: “5. In the present matter the petitioners are claiming the benefits of the Government Notification dated 8th May 2020. In the said notification there is a proviso and the said proviso is that the prisoners convicted for serious economic offences or bank scams or offences under Special Actslike MCOC PMLA MPID NDPS UAPA etc.and also presently to foreign nationals and prisoners having their place of residence out of the State of Maharashtra will not be entitled to get the benefit of this notification Admittedly the petitioners are the convicts under the provisions of TADA and they are sentenced to life imprisonment. Though specifically TADA is not mentioned in the notification the Special Acts are mentioned in minutes of meeting of High Power Committee dated 10th May 2020. In the amendment to the Rule 4 of the Rules in clause No.12 it is mentioned that prisoners who are considered dangerous or have been involved in serious prison violence and who are convicted under Special Acts like Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 NDPS) rape etc. are not entitled to get the benefit of Rule 4 Rule 4 initially there was no category like pandemic situation created by COVID 19 virus. Only due to Government Notification dated 8th May 2020 the prisoners can be considered for giving them emergency parole and such parole is subject to the condition mentioned in the notification itself. In view of this circumstance and aforesaid provisions it cannot be said that vested right is given to the prisoners to get parole and some definite exceptions are created by the State. The words used in proviso are “like and etc.”. Thus the list of Special Acts given in the notification is not exhaustive and other special enactments which are similar in nature need to be considered and the authority has the power to say that TADA convict is also not entitled to get the benefit of Government Notification dated Prashant Rane PS Criwpst 3206 20 full bench.odt 8th May 2020. For all these reasons this Court hold that there is no need to interfere in the order made by the respondent. In the result both the petitioners stand dismissed.” There are two other orders which are required to be referred. In Shubham s o. Devidas Gajbhare’s case the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 366A and 376A of the Indian Penal Code. The Division Bench in its order dated 13 October 2020 considering Rule 19 as also provisions of Rule 4(21) of the 1959 Rules observed that as there was a conviction for sexual offences against minor then benefit of furlough cannot be given to such prisoners. On this interpretation the Division Bench upheld the orders passed by the Superintendent of Prisons rejecting the application of the petitioner for emergency parole In yet another case in Kalyan s o. Bansidharrao Renge supra) the Division Bench was considering the case of the petitioner who was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g of the Indian Penal Code and who was awarded rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The Court considering sub ruleinserted in Rule 19(1 of the 1959 Rules by a notification dated 8 May 2020 however without rendering any specific interpretation of the said rule observed that the petitioner deserved to be released on emergency parole Prashant Rane PS Criwpst 3206 20 full bench.odt 16. These are the different interpretations as made on applicability of sub ruleand its proviso as inserted in Rule 19(1) of the 1959 Rules. We may at the outset note that the parole and furlough Rules are part of the penal and prison system. It is well settled that parole cannot be claimed as a matter of rightof the 1959 rules which provides for emergency parole it needs to be noted that sub ruleprovides for emergency parole for the reason of death and for the reason of marriage of the persons so specified and the ‘Authority’ approving emergency Parole in the relevant case shall decide whether to grant parole under police escort or with Prashant Rane PS Criwpst 3206 20 full bench.odt other conditions. Sub rule as inserted by the amendment vide notification dated 8 May 2020 now provides for emergency parole in view of declaration of epidemic by the State Government under the Epidemic Diseases Act 1897. It categorises in Rule C(i) convicted prisoners whose maximum punishment is 7 years or less who can apply to be released on emergency parole which can be granted for 45 days and for further period as specified. Rule C(ii) speaks of emergency parole to be granted for convicted prisoners whose maximum sentence is above 7 years who can be released on emergency parole by the Superintendent of Prison if the convict had returned to prison on time on last two releasesprovides that the directions in Rule C(ii) “shall not apply to convicted prisoners convicted for serious economic offences or bank scams or offences under Special Actslike MCOC PMLA MPID NDPS UAPA etc.” and also presently to foreign nationals and prisoners having their place of residence out of the State In our opinion the language of the proviso clearly sets out that the provisions sub ruleof Rule 19(1)of the 1959 Rules would Prashant Rane PS Criwpst 3206 20 full bench.odt not apply to the prisoners convicted for various economic offences or bank scams or offences under some Special Actsand some of which are illustratively mentioned by using the word “like” when the proviso refers to the Special Acts namely MCOC PMLA MPID NDPS UAPA etc. This illustrative reference is further qualified by use of the word “etc” which indicates that the reference to these Special Acts is not exhaustive. The proviso using the words “like” and “etc” is a significant indication of the legislative intent. The intention and object to insert the proviso appears to be quite clear that the provisions of the emergency parole as introduced by sub rulewould not apply to the prisoners convicted of serious offences under the different Special Acts and who fall within the category as specified in sub rule C(ii 20. The reference as made in the proviso to certain Special Acts is certainly not exhaustive and it would include within its ambit other similar Acts where the offences are serious. The reference to Special Acts like MCOC PMLA MPID NDPS UAPA is required to read ejusdem generis. We have no doubt in our mind that the prisoners who are convicted under the Special Acts although not specifically referred in the proviso and those falling under sub rule(ii) by virtue of the proviso would not be covered within the ambit of sub ruleare held not eligible for furlough. Rule 4(12) and 4(21) read as under: Prisoners who are considered dangerous or have been involved in serious prison violence like assault outbreak riot mutiny or escape or who have been found to be instigating the serious violation of prison discipline smuggling of narcotic and psychotropic substances including convicted under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985rape or rape with murder attempt to rape with murder and foreigner prisonersThose involved in sexual offences against minor and We are not inclined to accept the contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioner that merely because the POCSO Act is not found in the special Acts as referred in the proviso the prisoners convicted under the POCSO Act can avail benefit of emergency parole. The next contention as urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the notification itself is contrary to Rule 19. We are afraid that this contention cannot be Prashant Rane PS Criwpst 3206 20 full bench.odt accepted. The purpose of incorporating Rule 19(1) sub rule is completely different from what is provided for in sub ruleand sub rule which is a special provision incorporated in view of the declaration of epidemic by the State Government under the Epidemic Diseases Act 1897. The purpose being to grant benefit of this rule to a limited category of prisoners so as to avoid ill effects of pandemic and consequent health hazards however with clear exception that sub rule C(ii) would not be applicable when the category of prisoners is of prisoners convicted for serious economic offences or bank scams or offences under the Special Acts. Thus there is no substance in the contention as urged on behalf of the petitioner that the notification is in any manner contrary to the basic provision of Rule 19(A) (ii). These are prisoners convicted for serious economic offencesor prisoners convicted in bank scams enactment not specified) and thereafter offences under Special Acts other than IPC) like MCOC PMLA MPID NDPS UAPA etc. are referred. It needs to be noted that under MPID there is no additional restriction on the grant of bail in addition to those under the Cr.P.C. We cannot be unmindful that the Special Acts so mentioned in the proviso if read applying the principles of ejusdem generis the common thread running through all these enactments is of the offences committed under these enactments being serious offences affecting the society at large. This is the primary and principal focus to provide for the illustrative names of the special acts and to keep open inclusion of several other enactments which may be alike and dealing with serious offences. In our opinion no other meaning can be attributed when the intention of the proviso itself is to keep open inclusion of other special acts without they being specifically referred in the proviso. We would hence read the proviso in its entirety so to gather the correct meaning of all the words. Thus in our opinion the words as appearing in the bracketed portion would not restrict the meaning and intention the proviso intends to achieve to make an exception from application of Prashant Rane PS sub ruleto those convicted for serious offences for a term of more than seven years. Criwpst 3206 20 full bench.odt We thus find that the intention is certainly not to classify the Special Acts only on the applicability of the words as used in the bracketed portion in the proviso but the primary focus of the proviso is to carve out an exception to applicability of sub rule for the prisoners who are convicted for serious offences as not only in the specified Special Acts but also under those Special Acts which are intended to be included within the proviso and not specially mentioned In our clear opinion the Special Acts like POCSO and or TADA are certainly required to be read in the proviso so as to make sub ruleinapplicable to the category of convicts falling therein Mr.Yagnik learned APP for the State would be justified in referring to the orders of the Supreme Court in the case of National Alliance for People s Movements & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra Ors.6 rejecting the challenge to the decision of the Division Bench in the case in National Alliance for People s Movements & Ors. No.41120 Prashant Rane PS on the seriousness of the offences having adverse impact on the society at large. The following observations of the Supreme Court are required Criwpst 3206 20 full bench.odt to be noted “12. …. In that circumstance what has been curtailed by the HPC by excluding certain categories is only with a view to deny the benefit of certain category of jail inmates who are charged with serious offences which has an adverse effect on the society at large though the length of the punishment that can be imposed may be lesser. Such of those persons charged under the special enactments or convicted for a period more than 7 years in any event if they are not otherwise disentitled to bail in a normal circumstance could still seek for bail in accordance with law and cannot treat the pandemic as fortuitous circumstance to secure bail to which they were otherwise not entitled to in law by claiming equal treatment. ….” The avowed intention to have such proviso can also be gathered from what the Supreme Court has enunciated in commenting on such prisoners convicted for serious offences. The Supreme Court in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan and others7 has expressed a concern that when penal reforms are introduced the State which runs the administration on behalf of the society and for the benefit of the society cannot be unmindful of safeguarding the legitimate rights of the citizens in regard to their security in the matters of life and liberty. The authorities cannot be oblivious of the obligation to the society to render it immune from those who are prone to criminal tendencies and have proved their susceptibility to indulge in criminal activities by being found guilty of having perpetrated a criminal act. It was observed that 7 AIR 2017 Supreme Court 4986 Prashant Rane PS Criwpst 3206 20 full bench.odt one of the discernible purposes of imposing the penalty of imprisonment is to render the society immune from the criminal for a specified period. It was thus observed that while meting out humane treatment to the convicts care has to be taken to ensure that kindness to the convicts does not result in cruelty to the society. Their Lordships in paragraphs 17 and 18 made the following observations: “17. Thus not all people in prison are appropriate for grant of furlough or parole. Obviously society must isolate those who show patterns of preying upon victims. Yet administrators ought to encourage those offenders who demonstrate a commitment to reconcile with society and whose behaviour shows that aspire to live as law abiding citizens. Thus parole program should be used as a tool to shape such adjustments. To sum up in introducing penal reforms the State that runs the administration on behalf of the society and for the benefit of the society at large cannot be unmindful of safeguarding the legitimate rights of the citizens in regard to their security in the matters of life and liberty. It is for this reason that in introducing such reforms the authorities cannot be oblivious of the obligation to the society to render it immune from those who are prone to criminal tendencies and have proved their susceptibility to indulge in criminal activities by being found guiltyof having perpetrated a criminal act. One of the discernible purposes of imposing the penalty of imprisonment is to render the society immune from the criminal for a specified period. It is therefore understandable that while meting out humane treatment to the convicts care has to be taken to ensure that kindness to the convicts does not result in cruelty to the society. Naturally enough the authorities would be anxious to ensure that the convict who is released on furlough does not seize the opportunity to commit another crime when he is at large for the time being under the furlough leave granted to him by way of a measure of penal reform.” Prashant Rane PS Criwpst 3206 20 full bench.odt 27. In view of the above discussion we find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench in Sardar s o Shawali Khan’ caseas also with the view taken by the Division Bench in Shubham s o. Devidas Gajbharecase . We accordingly answer the two question as framed by us as under : Q i) The decision of the Division Bench in Sardar s o. Shawali Khan makes the correct interpretation of Rule 19(1) sub ruleof the 1959 Rules whereas the decision of the Division Bench in Vijendra Malaram RanwaThe provisions of emergency parole as brought about by amendment to Rule 19(1) by incorporation of sub rule(N.R. BORKAR J Prashant Rane PS Page 2