Govt ‘confusion’ comes as boon for several convicts

A journalist has filed PIL in HC over issue

It wouldn’t be wrong to say that the Maharashtra government has gone topsy-turvy over deciding whether to include the period of parole and furlough in a convict’s sentence. This is so because the BJP-led government had in December 2015 decided to include the period of parole and furlough in the total sentence underwent by a convict.

Taking a u-turn, the same government in August 2016 decided not to include the said period in a convict's sentence. The point is this “confusion” has proved a boon for several convicts, who were released early as their availed period of parole and furlough was counted in their sentence. However, the exact data how many convicts were benefited by this confusion was not available.

Interestingly, actor Sanjay Dutt is also one of those who has been amongst those “fortunate” convicts to get an early release owing to the confusion of the government.

Speaking of the same, the Deputy Inspector General (DIG), prisons, Swati Sathe, said, “A notification was issued by the government in December 2015 directing us to include the period of parole

and furlough in a convict’s total sentence. This led to early release of many prisoners, who had availed the parole and furlough leaves.”

“Yes, actor Sanjay Dutt was also among the ones who were released after their parole and furlough period was counted along with the total period they spent serving their respective sentence,” Sathe said.

Taking cognisance of the government confusion, a journalist filed a criminal Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in Bombay High Court. The PIL has challenged the December 2015 notification of the government that advocated inclusion of parole and furlough in sentence.

Noted advocate Neel

Gawankar, appearing in the PIL has questioned the government’s wisdom. He said, “By one amendment, the government reckons period of parole as part of sentence and again after a few months, the government carried another amendment and reversed its stand, holding that henceforth, the period of parole and furlough shall not be included in sentence.”

“Why this wisdom did not dawn on December 1, 2015? Was it by accident or by design? Was it to favour some particular prisoner or class of prisoners?” Gawankar added. Surprisingly, the government had twice filed affidavits before the HC to substantiate its stand of including the parole period.