Allowed

Vitthal Gyandev Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Jul 2008WP/758/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the forfeiture of security deposit and an administrative penalty imposed on a prisoner who surrendered a few hours late due to a family illness, holding that authorities must apply their mind to justifiable causes before exercising forfeiture power.

What did the court decide?

Forfeit order set aside; writ petition allowed; security deposit refunded; penalty modified and set aside.

Vitthal Gyandev Shinde Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 758 OF 2008

¶5

Vitthal Gyandev Shinde. ...... ..... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors... ..... ..... Respondents.

¶6

Mr. Rajesh Bindra for the Petitioner. Mrs. S. D. Shinde, APP for the State.

¶7

CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and A. A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ.

¶8

DATED : 11TH JULY, 2008.

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

Rule.

¶11

Learned Counsel appearing for the State waives service Rule.

¶12

By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and taken for final hearing.

¶13

The grievance of the petitioner is that he was released on parole subject to furnishing cash security of Rs.5,000/-. He surrendered within time, but cash security was not returned and the same has been forfeited by an order of 12^th January, 2008 on the ground that the prisoner overstayed the furlough period. The prisoner was supposed to return by 5.00 p.m. On 10^th July, 2007, but he surrendered at 10.00 a.m. on 11^th July, 2007. Therefore,

¶14

¶15

there was a delay of few hours in surrendering.

¶16

Learned Public Prosecutor has drawn our attention to Rule 10 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 Maharashtra and Gujarat, which led the conditions for release of prisoner on furlough and parole. She also has drawn our attention to the Form that appended to the Schedule, to which a reference is made in Rule 10. In the Form, there is an undertaking by the prisoner that he would surrender on a specific date and a specific time and there is a further undertaking that in case of default the security amount may be forfeited in favour of the Government.

¶17

Therefore, there is no doubt that the Government has the power to forfeit the amount if the prisoner violates the conditions either given in the Bond or contained in Rule 10 of the Rules. But the forfeiture is not a mechanical process. It is a process where the concerned Authority should apply their mind to each case and decide the cases in accordance with the principles of rules and natural justice. There can be cases where there can be delay of few hours just because the train was late. This we are giving only by way of an example and this illustration is not meant to be exhaustive. Wherever the Authorities find that the delay in surrender was deliberate, they may exercise the power of forfeiture if, there is no justifiable reason for being late. In the cases where there is a delay of few hours and that too for a

¶18

¶19

justifiable reason for being late, the authorities may not exercise the power of forfeiture. The Jail Authorities should also keep in view that some of the prisoners have to make lots of efforts even to collect the amount of Rs.5,000/- which is very huge for large chunk of population of this country.

¶20

In the present case there is a delay of only few hours and we find that there is no deliberate attempt to overstay and the petitioner has given the reason that his son had fallen ill on 9^th July, 2007 suddenly and after arranging for his treatment he immediately went and surrendered.

¶21

Therefore, the order of forfeiture dated 12^th January, 2008 is hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of security deposit to the prisoner immediately.

¶22

Since there is a justifiable cause for delay in surrender, we also modify the order of the respondents imposing 5 days penalty for 1 day i.e. for few hours and set aside the same.

¶23

Rule made absolute in terms aforesaid. Writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

(BILAL NAZKI, J.)

¶26

Sd/-

Vitthal Gyandev Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vitthal Gyandev Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manubhai Paragji Vashi Vs Bombay City Civil and Sess.Court Bar Association

Suleman J.Saleh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajeev Misra Vs Visitor and Ors.

Vishwas Yeshwant Deshmane and Anr. Vs Keshav Patil and Anr.

R.S. Parmar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Haseeb Zabair Mulla and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra