Educate Convicts On Stringent Penal Consequences Of Violation Of Parole Conditions: Karnataka High Court Issues Guidelines
The High Court directed prison authorities across the State to educate convicts about the consequences of violating parole and to maintain comprehensive compliance records.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has directed that convicts released on parole must be made fully aware of their legal obligations to surrender within the stipulated time and the severe consequences of failing to do so.
The High Court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by a woman convicted under the Karnataka Prisons (Amendment) Act, 2022, for failing to surrender to custody after her parole period ended.
A Bench comprising Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, while dismissing the petition, observed that “convicts released on parole often remain unaware of the stringent consequences of failing to surrender within the prescribed time, and such ignorance frequently results in further criminal prosecution under Section 58 of the Act.”
The Bench, while making these observations, further remarked that “this situation warrants a proactive approach on the part of the prison administration to educate and sensitize convicts regarding the legal obligations attached to parole and the severe penal consequences that follow in case of non-compliance.”
The petitioner was represented by Advocate Shivanand V. Pattanshetti, while Jamadar Shahabuddin, High Court Government Pleader, appeared for the State.
Background
The petitioner-convict was serving a sentence for offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and was released on parole for 30 days, later extended by another 60 days. She was required to surrender to the Central Prison, but failed to do so.
Upon her non-surrender, the prison authorities registered a case under Section 58 of the Karnataka Prisons (Amendment) Act, 2022, for unauthorised absence and violation of parole conditions.
After examining witnesses and documents, the Trial Court convicted her and sentenced her to two years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,000. The Appellate Court upheld the conviction and rejected her contention that she was prevented from surrendering due to illness during the COVID-19 pandemic, finding no medical proof to substantiate the claim.
Aggrieved, she approached the Karnataka High Court under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to set aside the concurrent findings.
Court’s Observation
The Karnataka High Court, while deciding the matter, observed that both the trial and appellate courts had arrived at concurrent findings based on reliable evidence, and that the petitioner’s explanation for non-surrender was unsubstantiated. The Court noted that the petitioner had enjoyed extended parole and was legally bound to surrender, but instead remained absconding until apprehended.
The High Court emphasised that its revisional jurisdiction is limited and can only be invoked in cases of “manifest illegality, gross miscarriage of justice, or perversity in appreciation of evidence”, none of which were present in this case.
The Bench further elaborated on the scope and intent of Section 58, noting that the provision prescribes imprisonment of up to five years for parole violation, reflecting the Legislature’s intent to ensure the sanctity of parole and prison discipline.
The Bench underlined that “conviction under Section 58 carries distinct and independent penal consequences. The sentence awarded for such violation is to be served after completion of the original sentence, as the offence constitutes a fresh act of indiscipline and breach of lawful custody.”
Guidelines Issued To Prison Authorities
While dismissing the petition, the High Court issued the following comprehensive directions to ensure awareness among prisoners regarding parole obligations:
- Mandatory Briefing: Jail Superintendents or Parole Officers must brief every convict in a language understood by them about parole conditions and the punishment for non-compliance.
- Written Undertaking: A written acknowledgement must be obtained from the convict confirming understanding of parole terms, with a copy of Section 58 attached.
- Awareness Pamphlets: The Prisons Department, in coordination with the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA), must prepare multilingual pamphlets outlining parole rules and distribute them across all prisons.
- Record Maintenance: Prisons must maintain a Parole Compliance Register recording details of release, expiry dates, and surrender status for periodic review by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons.
- Coordination with Police: Jail authorities must inform the local police within 48 hours if a parolee fails to surrender on time.
- Legal Counselling: The District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) must conduct awareness sessions in prisons to explain parole rights and responsibilities.
The Bench directed that copies of the judgment be sent to the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services, KSLSA, and all District Legal Services Authorities for statewide implementation.
Conclusion
Holding that, in the matter at hand, the petitioner’s failure to surrender after the expiry of parole constituted a deliberate violation, the High Court dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the conviction.
Cause Title: Shakuntala W/o Bhogappa Nayak Desai v. The State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC-K:5916)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocate Shivanand V. Pattanshetti
Respondent: Jamadar Shahabuddin, High Court Government Pleader