Partly allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Pratapsing Charansing Nehang

Bombay HC15 Sept 2009APPLN/3220/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Earlier Bench observed petitioner completed 23 years 6 months of 24-year sentence due to jail claiming 8 years 7 months remission. Respondent admitted clerical error, stating actual remission is six and seven months. Court modified observations and abated further period required for premature release.

What did the court decide?

the observations in the order dated 30.3.2009 regarding remission are modified to read 6 years 7 months 21 days instead of 8 years 7 months 21 days

The State of Maharashtra Vs Pratapsing Charansing Nehang — Bombay HC (2009) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

¶3

AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3220 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 248 OF 2009 (Disposed of on 30.3.2009)

¶5

The State of Maharashtra

¶6

..Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Pratapsing s/o Charansing Nehang, age 45 years, occ. Nil, Prisoner No. 5712 in Central Prison, Aurangabad

¶9

..Respondent

¶10

Shri S.D.Kaldate, APP for the applicant Shri J.R.Shah, advocate appointed for the applicant

¶11

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, JJ.

¶12

DATED : 15^th September, 2009

¶13

O R D E R : (Per Shrihari P.Davare, J.)

¶14

1 The petitioner, namely Pratapsing Charansing

¶15

¶16

Nehang, a convict prisoner lodged in Central Prison, Aurangabad, had filed Writ Petition No. 248 of 2009, seeking premature release from the jail. He was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 153 of 1994 and by judgment and order dated 29.11.1994 he was held guilty and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default R.I. for 3 months.

¶17

2 Admittedly, by order dated 16.1.2009 the petitioner’s case was categorized under clause 4( c) of Annexure I of the Guidelines for premature release of the prisoners under the ‘14 Years Rule’ of prisoner serving life sentence after 18.12.1978 promulgated by Government Resolution dated 11.4.2008. By the said order, the petitioner’s life imprisonment was to extend upto 24 years subject to actual imprisonment of 14 years.

¶18

3 On the afore said background, Shri Bharat Bhosale, Superintendent filed reply dated 20.2.2009 in Writ Petition No. 248 of 2009 and gave account of remission of the prisoner that the prisoner has undergone the imprisonment of 14 years 10 months and 13 days and acquired remission of 8 years 7 months 21 days. Hence,

¶19

¶20

basing upon the said account given on behalf of the respondent as afore said, the earlier Division Bench while passing the order on 30.3.2009 observed that out of 24 years, the petitioner has completed his sentence of 23 years 6 months and 4 days and, therefore, the said petition came to be dismissed by the said order dated 30.3.2009 being premature one.

¶21

4 Thereafter the said petitioner convict preferred Criminal Writ Petition No. 744 of 2009 contending that in the light of the afore said observations, the petitioner has now completed 24 years imprisonment including the remission/set off and, therefore, he be released from the jail forthwith.

¶22

5 In the said petition, the respondent filed the affidavit in reply through Sudhakar Shankar Kamble i.e. Jailor Group-I, Aurangabad Central Prison, Aurangabad and thereby stated that due to over sight the jail authorities wrongly typed the remission/set off acquired by the prisoner as 8 years 7 months and 21 days instead of his entitlement of 6 years 7 months 21 days and admitted the said mistake and expressed apology therefor. The said Criminal Writ Petition No. 744 of 2009 is being disposed of

¶23

¶24

simultaneously by separate order today only. In the light of the afore said facts, the respondent has preferred the present Criminal Application praying that the observations in respect of remission/set off made in order dated 30.3.2009 be modified/corrected as 6 years 7 months 21 days instead of 8 years 7 months 21 days.

¶25

6 In the facts and circumstances, since the incorrect account of remission/set off acquired by the petitioner convict herein was given by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Aurangabad by way of letter/reply dated 20.2.2009 due to over sight as remission of 8 years 7 months 21 days instead of 6 years 7 months 21 days and since basing upon the same account given by the respondent, the observations were made by earlier Bench of this court in order dated 30.3.2009 that the petitioner has completed his sentence of 23 years 6 months 4 days out of 24 years as on 20.2.2009 and since the Superintendent, Central Prison, Aurangabad has admitted the said mistake and expressed the apology therefor, the account of remission acquired by the petitioner convict, as observed in the order dated 30.3.2009 stands modified to that extent and be read as the petitioner convict has acquired remission/set off of 6 years 7 months 21 days and

¶26

¶27

not 8 years 7 months 21 days and out of 24 years the petitioner had completed sentence of 21 years 6 months 4 days as on 20.2.2009 and present Criminal Application is allowed to that extent accordingly.

¶28

(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶29

dbm/crap3220.09

The State of Maharashtra v. Pratapsing Charansing Nehang

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Pratapsing Charansing Nehang

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Mah Vs Sandeep Ankush Shikhre and Ors.

Reshma Manoj Agrawal Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Bhausaheb Sambhaji Kamble Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Pratapsing Charransingh Nahang Vs the State of Mah

Mohamed Moin Faridulla Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Abhijit Sundarrao Pandit Vs the State of Mah and Anr.