TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether a convict sentenced for an offence under the NDPS Act is to have his parole application considered under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 or under the Rules framed by the Central Government in 1955; (ii) whether non-deposit of the fine amount can be treated as a condition precedent for consideration of permanent parole.
Issue (i): whether a convict sentenced for an offence under the NDPS Act is to have his parole application considered under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 or under the Rules framed by the Central Government in 1955.
Analysis: The conviction was for an offence under the NDPS Act, which falls within a field where the executive power of the Union extends. The governing parole regime, therefore, was the Central Government's rules framed in 1955 and not the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958. The petitioner's case had accordingly to be examined by the Central Government.
Conclusion: The parole request was required to be considered under the Central Government rules, not under the Rajasthan parole rules.
Issue (ii): whether non-deposit of the fine amount can be treated as a condition precedent for consideration of permanent parole.
Analysis: The Court held that deposit of fine was not a prerequisite for consideration of parole under the applicable Central Government rules. Since the petitioner had already undergone the default sentence for non-payment of fine, rejection solely on that ground was not sustainable.
Conclusion: Non-deposit of the fine could not be used to deny consideration of permanent parole.
Final Conclusion: The rejection order was set aside and the petitioner's case was directed to be forwarded for reconsideration under the applicable Central Government framework in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: For a convict under the NDPS Act, parole is to be considered under the Central Government rules applicable to Union subjects, and deposit of fine is not a condition precedent for such consideration.
TaxTMI 
