V. V. BEDARKAR, J. ( 1 ) THE prisoner has come with a grievance for not granting him furlough leave for a considerable period. He was convicted for imprisonment for life by an order dated 22-10-1974. ( 2 ) IT is the grievance of the petitioner that according to the rules he is entitled to furlough leave but he was granted furlough leave only twice and though he is entitled to third more furlough leave the same is refused on the ground that he was punished for jail offences in 1975. It is therefore his grievance that that punishment should not come in his way of getting furlough leave. ( 3 ) AGAINST this petition Shri R. S. Rashtrapal Jailor Ahmedabad Central Prison Ahmedabad has filed an affidavit. In this affidavit it stated that as per Rule 3 (2) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules) a life convict is entitled to Furlough leave after two years for the first seven years. Therefore according to this affidavit the petitioner was entitled to furlough leave on 22-10-1976 (as he was sentenced on 22 It is the case that the petitioner was given jail punishments on 19-8-1975 and 6 Therefore as per Rule 4 (6) of the Rules and also as per the Note 3 under Rule 3 etc. the petitioner lost his furlough rights which was due on 29-10-1976 as stated above. But there-after there is no explanation as to what happened to the petitioners 1978 furlough leave. ( 4 ) WHEN we asked specific question as to what were the jail offences committed by the petitioner it was stated that on 19-8-1975 he took Khichadi in stead of leaves. The petitioner has submitted in his application that as he was not well he took Khichadi instead of leaves and secondly on 6 it is the allegation the petitioner purchased lemons from the Jain Canteen itself. It is told that for these offences on each count remission of 5 days was cut. So he has been already punished. ( 5 ) SUB-RULE (6) of Rule 4 of the Rules provides that prisoners whose conduct is in the opinion of the Superintendent of Prison not satisfactory enough shall not be considered for release on furlough. This does not provide for automatic cut in furlough as a punishment. So he has been already punished. ( 5 ) SUB-RULE (6) of Rule 4 of the Rules provides that prisoners whose conduct is in the opinion of the Superintendent of Prison not satisfactory enough shall not be considered for release on furlough. This does not provide for automatic cut in furlough as a punishment. It is very clear that the petitioner was not told that he is not entitled to furlough leave on the ground that the Superintendent of Prison did not consider his conduct satisfactory. He was never informed about this. ( 6 ) IN fact the Superintendent of Prison had not formed the requisite opinion under Rule 4 (6) that the conduct of the prisoner was so unsatisfactory (not satisfactory enough) for release on furlough. It is not even alleged that such opinion was formed by the Superintendent. The prisrone Was never told about this. He could not have formed such opinion in view of the trivial nature of the prison offences mentioned above and the minor punishments of cuts in remission of only five days each. If the authority had considered the prison offences serious enough and conduct of the prisoner so unsatisfactory so as to forfeit the right of the prisoner to furlough leave (which is 14 days) that would have been reflected in the punishment. Moreover every prison offence does not necessarily render the conduct so unsatifactory for ever. If the application for furlough is rejected it can be again made after six months under Rule 9. ( 7 ) SECTION 46 of the Prison Act 1894 provides for punishments for prison offences and clause (4) as applicable in Gujarat reads as follows :such loss of privileges admissible under the remission or furlough or parole system for the time being in force as may be prescribed by rules made by the State Government. ( 8 ) RULE 1280 of the Bombay Jail Manual provides for minor and major punishments for prison offences Forfeiture of remission not exceeding Eve days is a minor punishment. ( 9 ) LOSS of furlough privilege would be a different and another punishment. A plurality or combination of punishments is also contemplated under Section 47 but that would be a major punishment under Rule 1280 (2) (xi ). ( 9 ) LOSS of furlough privilege would be a different and another punishment. A plurality or combination of punishments is also contemplated under Section 47 but that would be a major punishment under Rule 1280 (2) (xi ). However that has to be done consciously having regard to the nature of the prison offence and not automatically regardless of the nature and seriousness or otherwise of the offence. ( 10 ) RULE 1316 provides that No prisoner shall be punished twice for the same offence. The protection against double jeopardy contained in Article 20 (2) of the Constitution is repeated in this rule. ( 11 ) IN the present case the prisoner has been refused furlough leave not on the ground that his conduct is in the opinion of the Superintendent of Prison not satisfactory enough but on a total misconception that a mere jail punishment howsoever minor for a prison offence howsoever trivial would automatically result into forefeiture of furlough privilege. This is clearly and manifestly illegal. Such refusal is not only contrary to Rule 4 (6) of Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959 but also contrary to Rule 1316 of the Bombay Jail Manual which gives protection against double punishments. ( 12 ) MR. S. T. Mehta the learned P. P. has drawn our attention to the judgment in the case of Nanubhai Bhanji bhai v. State and Others (Spl. Cri. Appln. No. 496 of 1981) decided on November 5 1982 by M. P. Thakkar C J. and R. C. Mankad J. wherein Note 3 to Rule 3 and Rule 4 are considered and it is held that the provision of lapse of refused furlough (not carry forward) would not be applicable where the refusal is not due to any fault on the part of the prisoner. The court further held that when the furlough leave is refused under Rule 4 (6) on the ground of the conduct of the prisoner not being satisfactory enough for release on furlough the furlough would lapse because in that case the refusal would be on a ground of fault on the part of the prisoner. If furlough leave is in fact and validly refused on such ground the consequence would be that the furlough would lapse. If furlough leave is in fact and validly refused on such ground the consequence would be that the furlough would lapse. But in the present case we find that there is no evidence to show that the Superintendent of Prisons had formed the requisite opinon. W e have also held that he could not have formed such opinion in view of trivial nature of the prisons offences and minor punishments. ( 13 ) THEREFORE can it be said that for this the prisoner should be doubly punished ? Punishment was awarded to the petitioner by cutting the remission for 5 days in each case i. e. in all 10 days. Can it be said that his conduct is not so satisfactory as to grant him furlough leave ? We say that punishing a convict twice over is not justified and considering the two minor lapses on the part of the petitioner it cannot be said that his conduct is such that he should not be granted furlough leave. At the most it can be said that after the punishment for any jail offence immediately a prisoner may not be released on furlough. According to Rule 9 of the Rules a prisoner is entitled to make a fresh application for furlough six months after the rejection of his previous application. But the trend of the affidavit of the Jailor is as if once a prisoner is punished he forfeits his right for being released on furlough. This is not correct. If it is considered that because a prisoner has been punished for a jail offence he loses his right for being released on furlough then it will be punishing him again and again and that can never be the intention even of sub-rule (6) of Rule 4 of the Rules. Such an action on the part of the jail authorities would be visiting the prisoner with double and multiple jeopardy. It is open to the jail authorities to cut furlough leave as a punishment for any jail offence so that he can move against that punishment. Such an action on the part of the jail authorities would be visiting the prisoner with double and multiple jeopardy. It is open to the jail authorities to cut furlough leave as a punishment for any jail offence so that he can move against that punishment. ( 14 ) AT any rate there is no explanation as to why the petitioner was not granted furlough after 1976 It is clear as per the affidavit of the Jailor that the petitioner has been granted furlough leave twice one in February 1982 and second in September 1983 So right from 1974 to 1983 the petitioner has been granted furlough leave only twice and as he has already completed 7 years of imprisonment in 1981 he is entitled to furlough leave every year thereafter. So the furlough leave granted to him twice can be said to be furlough leave granted after he completed 7 years of sentence and it can also be said that he is not granted any furlough leave prior to that period. That is not proper. ( 15 ) AS per the decision of this court in Punja Bhura v. State of Gujarat Special Civil Application No. 614 of 1983 decided on 26-7-1983 by a Division Bench consisting of P. D. Desai Actg. C. J. and S. B. Majmudar J. a prisoner is entitled under Rule 3 of the Rules to carry forward furlough leave which was not granted or was refused to him under Rule 4 (6 ). Therefore also the petitioner is entitled to claim furlough leave accumulated in his account. ( 16 ) IN the result the petition is allowed. The Inspector General of Prisons Gujarat State Ahmedabad is directed to grant accumulated furlough leave to the petitioner for the period prior to 1981. Rule made absolute. Rule made absolute. .