- (1.)THE principal question raised in the present criminal writ petition is relating to the scope and ambit of Rule 3 of the Prinsons (Bombay) Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. The question is, whether the actual imprisonment undergone provided in the said provision includes the imprisonment undergone as an under-trial prisoner or only imprisonment after conviction.
(2.)BEFORE we examine the legal question, there is no dispute about the facts that the petitioner was arrested on 18-6-1991 for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. There is also no dispute that the Sessions Judge, Nagpur convicted the petitioner under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded life imprisonment vide his judgment date 6-2-1993. It is also admitted by the parties that the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the said judgment of the learned Sessions Judge whereby the petitioner has been convicted of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded life imprisonment and that Criminal Appeal is pending before this Court.
(3.)IN the light of the facts stated above, the petitioner claims that he is entitled to grant of furlough on expiry of two years from 18-6-1991, the date when he was arrested for the first time and after he was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on 6-2-1993. The contention of the petitioner is that since criminal appeal filed by him against the judgment dated 6-2-1993 passed by the Sessions Court, Nagpur is pending before this Court, he has not filed any application for furlough with the respondents under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Furlough Rules' ).