Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Few Relevant facts : According to the petitioner, he made an application on 16-12-1991 to the District Magistrate, Rajkot, praying for his parole leave for 60 days on the medical ground of his operation of 'Hernia' by a private surgeon outside the Jail alongwith the medical certificate dated 12-12-1991 in the said regard issued by no less a Doctor than the Medical Officer of the District Jail Dispensary at Rajkot. Immediately pursuant to this application, necessary police report was called for from the the D.S.P. (Rural), Rajkot, who in his turn submitted the same on 7-2-1992 stating therein that as per the statements recorded during the course of inquiry, the petitioner was allegedly reported to be a headstrong person with a ferocious temperament and that a fear has been expressed by some of the persons whose statements came to be recorded that if he was so released on parole, he would commit murder. The District Magistrate accepting and relying upon this adverse police opinion against the petitioner, rejected his parole leave application by an order dated 24-12-1991 as stated above in para-1 of this judgment, giving rise to the present petition.

4. As against the above, Mr. D. K. Trivedi, the learned P.P. appearing for the respondents supporting the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate rejecting the parole leave application, submitted that as a District Head, the District Magistrate has a special responsibility to see that the law and order situation is maintained in his District. Mr. Trivedi further submitted that accordingly in cases of parole and furlough also, if the District Magistrate feels that the police opinion sought for is adverse and is against the petitioner, the District Magistrate has no alternative but to refuse the parole/furlough leave in overall interests of law and order situation. The learned P.P. further submitted that in the instant case also, since there was a definite adverse police opinion based on certain statements against the petitioner, the District Magistrate was perfectly justified in rejecting his parole leave application. The learned P.P. on the basis of these submissions ultimately urged that the question involved being purely a question of fact, the Court should not interfere in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Now, undoubtedly, the adverse police opinion has certainly some positive, definite relevance and that it must be given its due weightage at the time of considering parole or furlough leave applications, more particularly at the time when such parole or furlough leave is to be granted for the first time after the order of conviction and sentence. But at the same time, the said police opinion standing by itself divorced of other relevant facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the case cannot be mechanically given any undue preference and importance so much so as to refuse the parole leave which otherwise deserves to be granted. In fact, before placing any implicit reliance and banking upon the alleged adverse police opinion, it is also the foremost duty of the District Magistrate and for that purpose any other competent authority empowered to grant parole or furlough leave to first of all coolly examine, appreciate and verify the bona fides, truthfulness, genuineness and the ultimate resultant effect of the alleged adverse police opinion in light of other attending important circumstances, for example, as highlighted in the instant case above in para 3 of this judgment. In the said process, if it is ultimately found that the said adverse police opinion stands outweighed and falsified, the same obviously pales into insignificance losing all its credibility to command any consideration. Many a times, it is found that the alleged adverse police opinion is only a one-sided picture of some false or sometimes imaginary apprehensions of some interested persons which as stated above clearly stands belied by consistent good conduct of the prisoner inside and outside the Jail. If things are not seen and examined from this particular angle and perspective, the parole/furlough leave would remain idle on the statute book denying the Prison Justice to the deserving accused persons in the Jail.

6. Now bearing in mind the above discussion, if we examine the facts and circumstances of the present case as highlighted above in para 3 of this judgment, it is indeed strange to find how indeed the adverse police opinion could have possibly made any dent and weighed upon the District Magistrate while deciding the present parole leave application ? This only means that the District Magistrate while deciding the present parole leave application has not cared to have a look at the relevant circumstances standing in favour of the petitioner, completely falsifying the alleged adverse police opinion against the petitioner ! ! ! In fact, such a rejection of parole leave application exhibits total non-application of mind. We feel that the District Magistrate or for that purpose any other authority competent to exercise such a power to grant or refuse the parole leave should not mechanically slop itself at the alleged adverse police opinion without taking into consideration other material facts having definite and positive bearing on the decision taking process in favour of the prisoner to obtain parole/furlough leave as the case may be. Looking to the manner in which the discretionary power to release the prisoner on parole in this case came to be exercised, we are sorry to observe that this is not the way to exercise the quasi-judicial powers of deciding the parole/furlough leave applications by the District Magistrate or for that purpose any other competent authority empowered to do so.