Dismissed

Pratapsing Charransingh Nahang v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC15 Sept 2009WP/744/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal writ petition sought the release of a convict claiming completion of his 24-year sentence. The court held the petition premature based on corrected jail data, ordering a departmental inquiry into clerical errors and directing future communications through proper channels.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as premature. Direction for departmental inquiry into erroneous remission calculations and for future communications via Government Pleader.

Pratapsing Charransingh Nahang Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

¶3

AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINALWRIT PETITION NO. 744 OF 2009

¶5

Pratapsingh Charansingh Nehang

¶6

..Petitioner

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

..Respondent

¶10

Shri J.R.Shah, advocate appointed for the petitioner Shri S.D.Kaldate, APP for the respondent/State

¶11

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

¶12

DATED : 15.9.2009

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Shrihari P. Davare, J.)

¶14

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the

¶15

learned counsel for the parties taken up for final hearing.

¶16

1 Perused.

¶17

2 The petitioner/convict namely Pratapsingh Charansingh

¶18

¶19

Nehang has sent a letter from jail contending that he has completed his sentence of 24 years including the set off and remissions and, therefore, he be released from the jail forthwith. The said letter was treated as Writ Petition and Shri J.R.Shah, advocate was appointed as amicus curiae for the petitioner.

¶20

3 It is the contention of the petitioner that earlier he had sent a letter seeking his premature release from the jail and same was treated as Criminal Writ Petition No. 248 of 2009, which came to be dismissed by this court vide order passed on 30.3.2009. It is the contention of the petitioner that while dismissing the said petition, it was observed by this court that, “from the account given by the prison authorities, prisoner has actually undergone 14 years 10 months and 13 days imprisonment as on 20.2.2009. He has earned remissions of 8 years 7 months and 21 days. Thus, out of 24 years the petitioner has completed his sentence of 23 years 6 months and 4 days.” Hence, the said petition came to be dismissed, since the petitioner had not completed full 24 years imprisonment including remissions and set off on the date of passing of the order dated 30.3.2009.

¶21

4 Now, it is the contention of the petitioner that considering the observations in the said order dated 30.3.2009

¶22

¶23

that the petitioner has undergone 23 years 6 months and 4 days as on 20.2.2009 and also considering the further lapse of period of about more than 6 months thereafter, the petitioner be released forthwith from the jail since he has completed 24 years imprisonment including remission and set off.

¶24

5 On behalf of the respondent, Shri Sudhakar Shankar Kamble, Jailor Group-I, Central Prison, Aurangabad has filed affidavit in reply and thereby opposed the present petition, contending that the petitioner was convicted by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No. 153 of 1994 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code on 29.11.1994 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. On completion of 12 years of actual imprisonment in jail by the petitioner, the jail authorities submitted proposal for premature release of the petitioner to the Government and an order was passed on 16.1.2008 and considering the offence and category, the Government decided that the prisoner/petitioner be confined in Aurangabad Prison and should be released on completion of 24 years of imprisonment including remissions subject to the good conduct of the prisoner petitioner in the prison upto the afore said time of release.

¶25

¶26

6 In the context of earlier petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 248 of 2009 filed by the petitioner, the respondent submits that the Superintendent of Jail authorities had filed the report before this court, but due to over sight, the jail authorities wrongly typed 8 years 7 months 21 days remission; whereas the petitioner was entitled for remission period of 6 years 7 months 21 days. Accordingly, the respondent submits that the jail authorities sent a letter to the Registrar of this court and communicated the said mistake and also expressed the apology. In the result, the respondent submits that on 31.7.2009 the petitioner has actually undergone imprisonment of 15 years 3 months and 21 days and he is entitled for remission for a period of 6 years 10 months and 20 days subject to his good conduct and he would be released in the month of November, 2010 if the petitioner’s conduct is good till then.

¶27

7 Heard learned respective counsel for the parties.

¶28

8 Considering the rival submissions, at the out set, admittedly the petitioner is categorized under Category No.3 (b) of the Guidelines promulgated by the Government Resolution dated 11.5.1992, since he was convicted and sentenced by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded on 29.11.1994

¶29

¶30

and he is entitled to be released from the jail on completion of 24 years subject to minimum of 14 years of actual imprisonment including set off and remissions.

¶31

9 Further admittedly the petitioner had sent the letter, which was treated as Writ Petition No. 248 of 2009, wherein from the account given by the prison authorities, it was observed that the petitioner has actually undergone 14 years 10 months and 13 days imprisonment as on 20.2.2009 and it was also observed that he had earned remission of 8 years 7 months and 21 days and it was further observed that out of 24 years, the petitioner has completed his sentence of 23 years 6 months and 4 days and accordingly the said petition came to be dismissed on 30.3.2009, since it was premature on the said date.

¶32

10 Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred the present petition praying for his release from the jail forthwith basing upon the afore said observations. However, now the respondent by filing the affidavit in reply submitted that the jail authorities have wrongly typed the remission period as ‘8 years 7 months and 21 days’ due to over sight, although the petitioner was entitled for remission period of ‘6 years 7 months and 21 days’ and further submitted that the letter was sent to the Registrar of this court by

¶33

¶34

the jail authorities on 16.5.2009 to that effect.

¶35

11 Considering the said position, it is apparently clear that the jail authorities had given incorrect calculation of remission earned by the petitioner herein, may be due to over sight, and informed that the petitioner has earned remissions of ‘8 years 7 months and 21 days’ instead of informing that the petitioner has earned remissions as ‘6 years 7 months and 21 days’ and basing upon the said calculations, submitted by the respondent, the earlier order came to be passed by this court in Writ Petition 248 of 2009 on 30.3.2009, which is being modified to that extent by separate application therefor simultaneously.

¶36

12 Besides that, the respondent has submitted that the petitioner has actually undergone imprisonment of 15 years 3 months and 21 days as on 31.7.2009 and the petitioner is entitled for remission of 6 years 10 months and 20 days subject to his good conduct and the petitioner would be released in the month of November, 2010, if the petitioner’s conduct is good till then. Hence, in view of the said position, the present petition becomes premature and, therefore, the same is required to be dismissed.

¶37

13 As regards the letter sent by the jail authorities on

¶38

¶39

16.5.2009 to the Registrar of this Court communicating the mistake, it was received by this office in Inward No. 335 on 19.5.2009, but the order was already passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 248 of 2009 on 30.3.2009 and the said letter is subsequent thereto. Apart from that, the jail authorities should have approached the Government Pleader’s office by way of afore said communication instead of writing the letter to the Registrar of this court and should have taken the appropriate steps to submit the application for modification of the earlier order passed in Writ Petition No. 248 of 2009 on 30.3.2009 and such practice of sending the letter by the jail authorities directly to the Registrar of this court is required to be deprecated.

¶40

14 Moreover, while filing the replies, reports/communications before the court, it is incumbent upon the jail authorities and it’s staff to take utmost care and precaution and must place the correct and proper account of the prisoner/convict before the court and, therefore, we are inclined to direct to conduct the departmental inquiry of the concerned personnel who furnished incorrect account of remissions/set off of the petitioner to this court in Writ Petition No. 248 of 2009 and to submit the report thereof before this court at the earliest.

¶41

¶42

15 In the circumstances, it is apparently clear that present petition is premature and, therefore, same stands dismissed. However, while dismissing the petition, we direct that the jail authorities shall deprecate the practice of writing letters directly to the Registrar of this Court and they are directed to approach to this court through the Government Pleader’s office hence forth and we further direct that the departmental inquiry of the concerned personnel who furnished the incorrect account of remissions/set off pertaining to the petitioner to the court in Writ Petition No. 248 of 2009, be conducted and report thereof be furnished before this court at the earliest.

¶43

16 Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Prisoner be informed accordingly. Rule is discharged. Shri J.R.Shah, learned counsel was appointed for the petitioner. The High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee at Aurangabad shall pay the counsel’s fees as per Rules. Registry to send copy of this order to concerned Jail Authorities for the afore said compliance.

¶44

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

¶45

dbm/crwp744.09

Pratapsing Charransingh Nahang v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratapsing Charransingh Nahang v. the State of Mah

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.

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

Abhijit Sundarrao Pandit Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Pratapsing Charansing Nehang