R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE petitioner -convicted prisoner under the T.A.D.A. Act -sought his release on parole under the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Rules of 1958 ' for short). But, the same has been denied to him. Hence this petition before this Court.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that vide judgment dt. 30.11.2002 the Judge, Designated Court, T.A.D.A., Ajmer had convicted the appellant under Section 6(1) of T.A.D.A., under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and under Section 9 -B(1)B and (vii) and under Section 9 -C of the Explosive Act and had sentenced him for different terms of imprisonment, the maximum being 5 years of R.I. Till 16.07.2006, the petitioner has undergone an incarceration of 4 years and 23 days. According to the petitioner vide letter dt. 28.10.1998, the benefit of Remission, Parole and Open Camp Jail was extended to prisoners convicted under N.D.P.S. Act and T.A.D.A. Act. However, vide order dt. 29.04.2000, the said letter was revoked. Hence the benefit of Parole, Open Camp Jail and Remission was denied to prisoners convicted under the aforementioned Acts. According to the petitioner such a denial is arbitrary and unreasonable as no reasons have been stated by the State for denying the said benefits. Vide notice dt. 26.10.2006 the petitioner had requested that he be released on his first regular parole of 20 days under R.9 of the Rules of 1958. However, the same has been denied to him on the ground that after circular dt. 02.05.2000, prisoners convicted under the T.A.D.A. Act are not entitled to be released on parole. Mr. Suresh Shani, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that R.14 of the Rules of 1958 enumerates the list of prisoners who are ineligible for grant of parole under the Rules. Such list does not contain the T.A.D.A. Act. Therefore, the prisoners convicted under the T.A.D.A. Act are ipso facto entitled for parole under the Rules of 1958. The circular dt. 02.05.2000 issued by the Government is against the Rules. For, the circular cannot modify the Rules.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. M.L. Goyal, learned Dy.G.A., has supported both the circular as well as the action of the jail authorities in denying the petitioner 's frist regular parole.;