Holding

The period of parole is to be excluded from the period of sentence, as it is counted as remission of sentence.

Summary

The petitioners, life‑imprisoned convicts in Goa, were released on parole under the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006 and subsequently applied for premature release on the ground that they had completed 14 years of actual imprisonment. The High Court held that the period spent on parole must be excluded from the calculation of the 14‑year term, treating parole as remission of sentence, and dismissed the writ petitions. The petitioners challenged this view before the Supreme Court, arguing that parole periods should be counted as time in custody under Section 55 of the Prisons Act, 1894 and citing earlier Supreme Court decisions. The Court examined the object and purpose of parole, Rule 335 of the Goa Prisons Rules, and held that parole is a conditional release whose duration is counted as remission and therefore must be excluded from the sentence for the purpose of computing actual imprisonment. It also rejected the applicability of the cited precedents and the relevance of Section 55 to parole releases. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, affirming the High Court’s decision.

Issues considered

Whether the period of parole is to be excluded from the period of sentence under the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006 while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment for the purpose of premature release

Legislation cited

General Clauses Act, 1897
Goa Prisons Rules, 2006s. Rule 2(21), s. Rule 335
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. Section 53
Prisons Act, 1894s. Section 55

Subjects

parolepremature releaseremission of sentenceactual imprisonmentGoa Prisons RulesSection 55criminal procedure

Judgment

[2023] 1 S.C.R. 1029 1029

ROHAN DHUNGAT ETC. A
v.
THE STATE OF GOA & ORS. ETC.
(Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.12574-12577 of 2022)
JANUARY 05, 2023 B
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Goa Prisons Rules, 2006 – r. 335 – Whether the period of
parole is to be excluded from the period of sentence under Rules of
2006 while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment for the
C
purpose of premature release – Held: r. 335 of the Rules, 2006
provides that the period of release on Furlough and Parole shall be
counted as remission of sentence – Once the period of parole is to
be counted as remission of sentence, the period of parole is also
required to be excluded from the period of sentence while
considering 14 years of actual imprisonment. D
Parole – Object and purpose – discussed.
Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, the Court
HELD: 1. While considering the question/issue ‘Whether
the period of parole is to be excluded from the period of sentence E
under Rules of 2006 while considering 14 years of actual
imprisonment for the purpose of premature release ?’, the object
and purpose of parole is required to be taken into consideration.
Parole is a conditional release. Parole can be granted in case of
short-term imprisonment. Duration of parole extends to one
month. Parole is granted by the State Government. For parole, F
specific reason is required. Parole can be granted for number of
times. [Para 5][1032-G]
2. The High Court while passing the impugned judgment
and order and taking the view that the period of parole is to be
excluded from the period of sentence while considering 14 years G
of actual imprisonment has heavily relied upon or considered Rule
335 of the Rules, 2006 which provides that the period of release
on Furlough and Parole “shall be counted as remission of
sentence ….”. Once the period of parole is to be counted as
remission of sentence, as rightly observed and held by the High H
1029
1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A Court, the period of parole is also required to be excluded from
the period of sentence while considering 14 years of actual
imprisonment. [Para 7.1][1033-B-D]
3. If the submission on behalf of the prisoners that the
period of parole is to be included while considering 14 years of
B actual imprisonment is accepted, in that case, any prisoner who
may be influential may get the parole for number of times as
there is no restrictions and it can be granted number of times
and if the submission on behalf of the prisoners is accepted, it
may defeat the very object and purpose of actual imprisonment.
This Court is of the firm view that for the purpose of considering
C actual imprisonment, the period of parole is to be excluded. [Para
10][1034-C-D]
Sunil Fulchand Shah vs. Union of India (2000) 3 SCC
409 : [2000] 1 SCR 945; Avtar Singh vs. State of
Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 409 : [2000] 1 SCR 945 – held
D inapplicable.
Case Law Reference
[2000] 1 SCR 945 held inapplicable Para 8
[2000] 1 SCR 945 held inapplicable Para 8.1
E
EXTRA ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special
Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.12574-12577 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.08.2022 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay at Goa in CRLWP Nos.466, 467, 471 and 472
of 2021.
F
Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Shivraj Gaonkar, Ms. Aarushi Singh,
Advs. for the Petitioners.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M.R. SHAH, J.
G
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Criminal Writ
Petition Nos. 466 of 2021, 467 of 2021, 471 of 2021 and 472 of 2021
dated 03.08.2022, by which, the High Court has dismissed the said writ
petitions holding that the period of Parole is to be excluded from the
H period of sentence while considering the 14 years to actual imprisonment
ROHAN DHUNGAT ETC. v. THE STATE OF GOA & ORS ETC. 1031
[M.R. SHAH, J.]

for the purpose of premature release, the original writ petitioners have A
preferred the present Special Leave Petitions.
2. That the original petitioners are all convicts undergoing life
imprisonment. That all of them were released on parole under the
provisions of Goa Prisons Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the
“Rules, 2006”). That all the original petitioners applied for premature B
release under the Rules, 2006. The State Sentence Revenue Board
recommended for premature release. The State Government sought
opinion of the convicting Court on the premature release of the petitioners.
The convicting Court opined that the convicts shall not be released
prematurely considering the gravity of offence. Therefore, the State
Government rejected the premature release of the petitioners. The C
convicts – original writ petitioners, therefore, preferred the respective
writ petitions before the High Court of Bombay challenging the State’s
decision to not considering their case for premature release. Before the
High Court, it was the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that
the convicts have completed 14 years in custody and therefore, as such D
were entitled for premature release. It was the case on behalf of the
convicts- original petitioners that the period of parole is not to be excluded
from the period of sentence under the Rules, 2006 while considering 14
years of actual imprisonment for the purpose of premature release. Taking
into consideration the Rule 335 of the Rules, 2006 which provides that
the period of release on Furlough and Parole “shall be counted as remission E
of sentence ….” the High Court by impugned judgment and order has
observed and held that the period of parole is to be excluded from the
period of sentence while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment
for the purpose of premature release. As the respective convicts – original
writ petitioners excluding period of parole did not complete 14 years of F
actual imprisonment, the High Court by the impugned judgment and order
has dismissed the respective writ petitions. Feeling aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by
the High Court, the original writ petitioners have preferred the present
petitions.
G
3. Shri Siddharth Dave, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the respective petitioners has vehemently submitted that in the facts
and circumstances of the case the Hon’ble High Court has seriously
erred in holding that the period of parole is to be excluded from the
period of sentence under the Rules, 2006 while considering 14 years of
actual imprisonment for the purpose of premature release. H
1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A 3.1. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Dave learned Senior
Counsel for the respective petitioners that the Hon’ble High Court has
erred in relying on the Rule 335 of the Rules, 2006 to hold that since
period of release on parole is counted as remission, the same cannot be
counted as part of sentence.
B 3.2. It is submitted that even while on parole the accused /convicts
can be said to be in custody / judicial custody and therefore, period of
parole is to be included while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment
for the purpose of premature release.
3.3 It is vehemently submitted that as such the view taken by the
C High Court is just contrary to the decision of this Court in the case of
Sunil Fulchand Shah vs. Union of India reported in (2000) 3 SCC
409 as well as in the case of Avtar Singh vs. State of Haryana reported
in (2002) 3 SCC 409 (para 11).
3.4. It is further submitted by Shri Dave learned senior counsel
D for the original writ petitioners-convicts that even as per Section 55 of
the Prisons Act, 1894, a prisoner when being taken to or from any prison
in which he may be lawfully confined, shall be deemed to be in prison
and therefore, deemed to be in custody and therefore, the period of
parole shall have to be included as in custody for the purpose of actual
period of imprisonment while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment.
E
Making above submissions, it is prayed to hold that the period of
parole is to be included while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment
for the purpose of premature release.
4. The short question which is posed for the consideration of this
F Court is whether the period of parole is to be excluded from the period
of sentence under the Rules, 2006 while considering 14 years of actual
imprisonment for the purpose of premature release?
5. While considering the aforesaid question /issue, the object and
purpose of parole is required to be taken into consideration.
G Parole is a conditional release. Parole can be granted in case of
short-term imprisonment. Duration of parole extends to one month. Parole
is granted by the State Government. For parole, specific reason is
required. Parole can be granted for number of times.
6. “Imprisonment” is defined under Rule 2(21) of the Rules, 2006.
H “Imprisonment” means imprisonment of either description as defined in
ROHAN DHUNGAT ETC. v. THE STATE OF GOA & ORS ETC. 1033
[M.R. SHAH, J.]

Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the General Clauses A
Act,1897. The term of imprisonment is not included in the computation
of term of parole.
7. Keeping in mind the above, the issue involved in the present
case viz. whether the period of parole is to be excluded from the period
of sentence while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment for the B
purpose of premature release is to be considered.
7.1 The High Court while passing the impugned judgment and
order and taking the view that the period of parole is to be excluded
from the period of sentence while considering 14 years of actual
imprisonment has heavily relied upon or considered Rule 335 of the Rules, C
2006 which provides that the period of release on Furlough and Parole
“shall be counted as remission of sentence ….”. Once the period of
parole is to be counted as remission of sentence, as rightly observed and
held by the High Court, the period of parole is also required to be excluded
from the period of sentence while considering 14 years of actual
imprisonment. D

8. Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this
Court in the case of Sunil Fulchand Shah (supra) relied upon by learned
senior counsel for the respective petitioners – convicts / prisoners is
concerned, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the
case on hand. It was a case of detenue under the provisions of the E
COFEPOSA Act. Even in the said decision, it is observed and held that
the period of detention would not stand automatically extended by any
period of parole granted to the detenu unless the order of parole or rules
or instructions specifically indicates as a term and condition of parole, to
the contrary. In the present case the term ‘imprisonment’ is not included F
in the computation of term of parole. Rule 335 specifically provides that
parole is to be counted as remission of sentence. Therefore, the said
decision would not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
8.1 Similarly, the decision of this case in the case of Avtar Singh
(supra) also shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand while G
considering the issue viz. whether the period of parole is to be excluded
from the period of sentence under the Rules, 2006 while considering 14
years of actual imprisonment.
9. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the petitioners relying
upon Section 55 of the Prisons Act, 1894 that even on parole the prisoners
H
1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A shall be deemed to be in custody and therefore, the said period is to be
included for the purpose of actual imprisonment is concerned, the
aforesaid has no substance. Section 55 of the Prisons Act, 1894 shall not
be applicable with respect to release on parole. Section 55 of the Prisons
Act, 1894 shall be applicable in a case where a prisoner is taken out
from any prison, he shall deem to have been in prison. However, the
B
same shall not be applicable with respect to release on parole.
10. If the submission on behalf of the prisoners that the period of
parole is to be included while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment
is accepted, in that case, any prisoner who may be influential may get
the parole for number of times as there is no restrictions and it can be
C granted number of times and if the submission on behalf of the prisoners
is accepted, it may defeat the very object and purpose of actual
imprisonment. We are of the firm view that for the purpose of considering
actual imprisonment, the period of parole is to be excluded. We are in
complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court holding so.
D 11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all
these Special Leave Petitions deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly
dismissed.

Ankit Gyan SLPs dismissed.
E (Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh and Aarsh Choudhary, LCRAs)

F

G

H