before us is whether grandmother would also fall in
the category of nearest relative in view of the use of
the expression “such as” in Rule 19. We find from
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Royal Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. State of
A.P. and others (1994 Supp (1) SCC 429) and the
decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in
the case of Bombay Municipal Corporation and
another vs. Daily Taj Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 2001 Bombay
263), that the terminology “such as” is illustrative
in nature and not exhaustive. That being so, person
of the category or class described in the Rule would
also be covered by the description of nearest
relative mentioned in Rule 19 though not
specifically mentioned therein. In the instant case,
the petitioner has claimed parole for the reason of
death of his grandmother. Applying the above
canon of interpretation, grandmother would also
form the part and parcel of the said class of nearest
relative. Therefore, looking to the illustrative nature
of the said terminology, we hold that even
the grandmother would be included in the said
expression. "
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 94 OF 2014
Dnyaneshwar s/o Tejrao Jadhav,
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE,
V.M. DESHPANDE,JJ.
DATE : 23RD JANUARY,2014
Citation; 2015 ALLMR (CRI)4780
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner
invited our attention to the judgment of this Court in
Criminal Writ Petition No. 434 of 2012 in case of
Mohammad Wasim Mohammad Imam Bhiwaniwale vs.
The State of Maharashtra and another [Criminal Writ
Petition No. 434 of 2012] decided on 12/02/2012] and
submits that, this Court had occasion to interpret Rule 19 of
the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (for
short, "Said Rules"). He invited our attention to paragraphs4
and 5 of the said judgment and submits that, this Court has
already taken a view that, grandmother would also form the
part and parcel of the class of nearest relative under Rule 19
of the said Rules. Therefore, he submits that, the petition
deserves to be allowed.
3. On the other hand, learned A.P.P., relying upon
the Rule 19 of the said Rules submits that, in the list of
nearest relatives, the grandmother is not included and
therefore, authority has rightly rejected the application filed
by the petitioner for parole on the ground of death of
grandmother of the petitioner.
4. We have given due consideration to the rival
submissions. We have carefully perused Rule 19 of the said
Rules and also the judgment of this Court in the case of
Mohammad Wasim Mohammad Imam Bhiwaniwale
(supra). The point raised in this petition by learned A.P.P.,
that, the grandmother is not included in the list of nearest
relatives is no longer resintegra and covered by the
authoritative pronouncement of this Court in the case of
Mohammad Wasim Mohammad Imam Bhiwaniwale
(supra).
5. Paragraphs4 and 5 of the judgment of this Court
in the case of Mohammad Wasim Mohammad Imam
Bhiwaniwale (supra) reads thus :
4) We quote Rule 19 for convenience, which
reads thus :
“19. When a prisoner may be released on
parole A prisoner may be released on parole for
such period not exceeding thirty days at a time as
the Competent Authority referred to in Rule 18 in its
discretion may order, in cases of serious illness or
death of nearest relatives such as father, mother,
brother, sister, spouse, children or marriage of
brother, sister and children of the prisoner or
pregnant woman prisoner for delivery (except high
security risk prisoner) or in case of natural
calamity such as house collapse, floods, fire and
earthquake. No such parole or extension of parole
shall be granted without obtaining a police report in
all cases except in the case of death of his
nearest relatives mentioned above :
Provided that, a prisoner shall not be
released on parole for the period of one year after
the expiry of his last parole except in case of
death of his nearest relatives mentioned
above.”
Rule 19 was amended in the year 2012
substituting the earlier Rule, which was amended
in the year 2007. Perusal of the above existing
amended Rule shows use of the expression “such
as”.
5) The question that falls for consideration
before us is whether grandmother would also fall in
the category of nearest relative in view of the use of
the expression “such as” in Rule 19. We find from
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Royal Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. State of
A.P. and others (1994 Supp (1) SCC 429) and the
decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in
the case of Bombay Municipal Corporation and
another vs. Daily Taj Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 2001 Bombay
263), that the terminology “such as” is illustrative
in nature and not exhaustive. That being so, person
of the category or class described in the Rule would
also be covered by the description of nearest
relative mentioned in Rule 19 though not
specifically mentioned therein. In the instant case,
the petitioner has claimed parole for the reason of
death of his grandmother. Applying the above
canon of interpretation, grandmother would also
form the part and parcel of the said class of nearest
relative. Therefore, looking to the illustrative nature
of the said terminology, we hold that even
the grandmother would be included in the said
expression. "
6. Therefore, in the light of judgment of this Court in
the case of Mohammad Wasim Mohammad Imam
Bhiwaniwale (supra), we are inclined to allow the writ
petition. In the result, we quash and set aside the order dated
10/01/2014 page15 ExhibitC. Writ Petition is allowed in
terms of prayer clause (B) and (C). The petitioner shall be
released on parole on the usual terms and conditions,
forthwith. Rule made absolute in above terms.
. Parties to act upon authenticated copy of this
judgment and order.
sd/ sd/
[ V.M. DESHPANDE J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]
No comments:
Post a Comment