Person Convicted For Minor Offences Under NI Act Entitled To "Lenient" Consideration Of Parole Application: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Jail Superintendent of the Central Prison at Bengaluru to consider a parole application filed by an accused convicted under the Negotiable Instruments Act seeking to arrange 50% of the disputed amount for depositing with the Supreme Court Registry in connection with an appeal against conviction pending before it. A single judge bench of Justice S G Pandit while allowing the petition filed by one BM Muniraju, questioning the endorsement issued by the Jail Superintendent rejecting his parole application, said,"The first respondent-Jail Superintendent is directed to consider petitioner's application for parole afresh, without reference to Rule 191 (1) (g) of Karnataka Prison Rules 1974, within a period of one month." The Petitioner-accused was convicted in four cases under Section 138 of the NI Act by the High Court. The same was challenged before the Supreme Court which by an order dated June 29, 2021 directed the Petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount in question with its Registry. To arrange this amount, the Petitioner filed an application before the Jail Superintendent, seeking parole. The Superintendent, vide endorsement dated August 21, 2021 rejected the request for parole. The petitioner then approached the High Court which directed the Superintendent to consider petitioner's application for ordinary parole leniently. It held that Rule 191 of the Karnataka Prison Rules, 1974 cannot be invoked in case of the petitioner who was convicted for a 'minor offence'. Once again, the Superintendent rejected his application on the basis of the Police report dated February 22, 2022 which stated that there is a chance of the petitioner getting involved in other fraudulent offences and he may threaten the witnesses who had deposed against him.In the instant petition, the Petitioner's counsel submitted that in the criminal case against the petitioner, only the complainant was examined and no other witnesses were examined. Hence, the said contention that the petitioner may threaten the witnesses cannot be accepted. The government advocate opposed the plea saying that the petitioner has suffered more than three convictions hence, in terms of Rule 191 of 1974 Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to parole. Further, referring to the police report he submitted that if the petitioner is granted parole, there is every chance of petitioner threatening the witnesses and every chance of petitioner repeating the offence convicted in four cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Findings: The bench referred to its previous directing the authorities to consider the parole application and said, "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 a 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. The application of the petitioner needs lenient consideration by the respondent authorities." Following which it said, "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." It then held, "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 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 authorities." Case Title: B M MUNIRAJU v. THE JAIL SUPERINTENDENT Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.7387/2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 283 Date of Order: 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2022 Appearance: Advocate K SREEDHAR for petitioner; AGA M VINOD KUMAR Click Here To Read/Download Order

Person Convicted For Minor Offences Under NI Act Entitled To "Lenient" Consideration Of Parole Application: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

Tags