Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : B M Muniraju Vs Jail Superintendent (Karnataka High Court)
Appeal Number : Writ Petition No.7387/2022
Date of Judgement/Order : 12/07/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

B M Muniraju Vs Jail Superintendent (Karnataka High Court)

This Court has categorically come to the conclusion that Rule 191 of 1974 Rules is not invocable against the petitioner, since it could be invoked when there is very serious offence. It also observed that the conviction of the petitioner is under the NI Act which are ordinarily treated as minor offences in criminal jurisprudence. It is also observed that there is no material to show that the petitioner is classified as “habitual criminal” in terms of the said Rule. At paragraph 6, this Court observed that the application of the petitioner needs lenient consideration by the respondent-authorities.

When this Court has specifically observed that Rule 191 of 1974 Rules is not invocable against the petitioner, the respondent-Police authorities could not have raised the same objections in the present writ petition also. There is no impediment to consider the petitioner’s request for parole under Rule 191 of 1974 Rules. The Police report (Annexure-F) which is relied on by the respondent-Police authorities also cannot be a material to deny consideration of petitioner’s application for parole. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner only one witness i.e., complainant was examined in C.C.No.1761/2009 and connected cases. Therefore, apprehension of the respondents that the petitioner may threaten the witnesses who had deposed against the petitioner has no basis. Since the petitioner is not declared as an habitual criminal, the apprehension of the respondents that the petitioner may repeat the offence is also has no basis. Thus, for the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the application of the petitioner for parole needs to be reconsidered by the respondent-authorities.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

The petitioner, a convict for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “NI Act”) is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the endorsement bearing No.BCP/J3/541/2020-21 dated 05.03.2022 (Annexure-E) wherein the petitioner’s application for parole for a period of two months is rejected and to quash the report of the second respondent bearing No. Hennuru/PS/CC/B2/2022 dated 22.02.2022 (Annexure-F).

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031