THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.26052 of 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao) This writ petition has been instituted seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for setting Sri Chabatulla Lakshmana Rao, the writ petitioner, who has been confined in Central Prison, Rajahmundry, at liberty, duly extending the benefits of the guidelines issued by the State Government contained in G.O.Ms.No.338, Home (Prisons-C) Department, dated 24.07.2009. The essential facts which will be needed for considering this writ petition are in a narrow compass and they are: the writ petitioner was involved in a case for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and he has been convicted by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Eluru, in Sessions Case No.357 of 1995, who ordered him to suffer imprisonment for life. In view of this conviction and sentence handed down by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Eluru, the petitioner came to be lodged in the Central prison, Rajahmundry, since 28.04.2000. The State Government passed orders through their G.O.Ms.No.338, Home (Prisons-C) Department, dated 24.07.2009, framing certain guidelines for granting one time exemption to the orders issued by it in their G.O.Ms.No.17, Home (Prisons- B.2) Department, dated 17.01.2003, granting certain remission. Para 4 of the said G.O. has set out certain conditions when attracted the benefit of remission is not extendable to such prisoners. It is important therefore to notice Condition No.10 of para 4 thereof, which reads as under: - “Life convicted prisoners who have availed either parole/furlough during the preceding two years and not surrendered in time.” The Superintendent, Central prison, Rajahmundry, in para 4 of his counter-affidavit has set out the facts relating to the writ petitioner-convicted prisoner, as under: - “It is submitted that the petitioner herein was released on parole on 28.12.2007 for a period of 15 days and the same was extended upto 19.01.2008. he was to surrender on 20.01.2008 and he overstayed for a day and surrendered on 21.01.2008. It is submitted that the petitioner herein was released on furlough on 02.03.2009 for a period of 14 days and he was to surrender on 17.03.2009, but he surrendered on 23.03.2009. He overstayed for 6 days.” From the above statement of facts, it becomes clear that the writ petitioner has availed parole commencing from 28.12.2007 and furlough commencing from 02.03.2009. Therefore, the first part of condition 10 of para 4 of G.O.Ms.No.338 is squarely attracted in his case. This apart, the Superintendent of the Central prison, Rajahmundry, made it clear that when the writ petitioner-convict prisoner was released on parole initially for a period of 15 days, which was subsequently extended, he was required to surrender on 19.01.2008, and instead he surrendered on 20.01.2008 and thus, overstayed the period of parole by a day. On the second occasion, when he has been released on furlough for a period of 14 days, he was required to surrender on 17.03.2009, while he actually surrendered on 23.03.2009, thus overstayed by a period of six days. Thus, the second part of condition 10 of para 10 of G.O.Ms.No.338 is also attracted to the case of the writ petitioner. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner-Smt A.Gayathri Reddy, strenuously contended that the convicted prisoners who overstay the parole or furlough receive appropriate punishment at the hands of the jail authorities, in accordance with the terms contained in the Jail Manual, and hence, the same shall not be put against them in the matter of granting remissions. We have considered the submission, but find ourselves unable to accept the same for two fold reasons- (1) the punishment, if any, that has been received by the convicts for overstaying, is for the lapse committed by them in that regard (2) the State has taken a policy decision not to release such convicts who, upon being granted parole or furlough, overstayed the period of such release. Generally, overstayal reflects the convict prisoner’s lack of respect and seriousness towards law and consequently, they may not be the right kind of persons who can be granted benefits of remission and released early by the State. Such a policy decision of the State Government is in consonance with Section 432 read with Section 433(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, we cannot find fault with it. Since the case of the writ petitioner falls within the exceptions set out by the State Government in para 4 of their policy decision contained in G.O.Ms.No.338 Home (Prisons-C) Department, dated 24.07.2009, we cannot grant the relief as prayed for and hence, the writ petition is dismissed. But, however, without costs. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ___________________________________ JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO 28th January, 2010 dr