https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311493 The laying requirement under Section 59(2) of the Prisons Act, 1894 was treated as directory because it required rules to be laid before the State Legislature without fixing any time limit or consequence for omission, so non-compliance did not invalidate the rules. Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006 was also held consistent with Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 because that provision fixes only a minimum period of actual imprisonment for release in specified life sentence cases, while remission remains subject to State policy. A further condition postponing consideration of shortening of sentence was therefore valid. en-us Mon, 22 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Dec 2023 20:51:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311493 The laying requirement under Section 59(2) of the Prisons Act, 1894 was treated as directory because it required rules to be laid before the State Legislature without fixing any time limit or consequence for omission, so non-compliance did not invalidate the rules. Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006 was also held consistent with Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 because that provision fixes only a minimum period of actual imprisonment for release in specified life sentence cases, while remission remains subject to State policy. A further condition postponing consideration of shortening of sentence was therefore valid. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 22 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311493