2022 (8) TMI 635 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - habitual criminal or not - petitioner s application for parole for a period of two months is rejected - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - HELD THAT - 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 - 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. The 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 - the application of the petitioner for parole needs to be reconsidered by the respondent-authorities. The writ petition is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of petitioner's application for parole under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a convict under Section 138 of the NI Act, sought to quash the rejection of his parole application and a police report. The petitioner argued that he needed parole to arrange funds for a Supreme Court-directed deposit. The court noted previous orders directing reconsideration of the parole application leniently due to the minor nature of the offense. The respondent argued against parole, citing multiple convictions and the risk of repeated offenses. The court emphasized that the petitioner's offense was minor, not invoking Rule 191 of the Prison Rules, and lacked evidence of habitual criminality.

The court highlighted that the Police report's concerns about witness intimidation lacked basis since only one witness had testified. It concluded that the petitioner's application deserved reconsideration without Rule 191's strict application. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the rejection and police report, and directed the Jail Superintendent to review the parole application within a month, excluding Rule 191's reference.

This judgment clarifies the considerations for granting parole to a convict under Section 138 of the NI Act. It underscores the importance of assessing the nature of the offense, absence of habitual criminality, and lack of witness intimidation evidence in deciding parole applications. The court's decision emphasizes a lenient approach towards convicts of minor offenses, ensuring fair consideration of their parole requests based on individual circumstances.