Remanded

Liladhar Dattaram Nagvekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Feb 2011WP/321/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition challenging an order punishing a prisoner for overstaying furlough. The High Court quashed the order due to non-application of mind and lack of reasoning, remanding it to the Authority for fresh consideration within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to Appropriate Authority for reconsideration on merits within four weeks.

Liladhar Dattaram Nagvekar Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2011)

PPD

11.wp.321-11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.321 OF 2011

¶6

Shri Liladhar Dattaram Nagvekar. Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others.

¶8

..Petitioner.

¶9

..Respondents.

¶10

Mr.Madhav Jamdar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.P.A. Pol, Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶11

CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ.

¶12

DATED : 25^th FEBRUARY, 2011.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

This Petition takes exception to the decision of the Superintendent, Open District Prison, Paithan dated 15.12.2008 whereby the explanation offered by the Petitioner for delay in reporting back to jail of two days and five days respectively was not accepted and instead the Petitioner was punished for two days and five days for overstaying the furlough period.

¶15

Broadly two questions have been raised before us during the arguments firstly, that the order passed by the Authority is

¶16

¶17

11.wp.321-11

¶18

cyclostyled copy which itself reveals nonapplication of mind by the Authority with regard to explanation offered by the Petitioner for overstaying furlough period. Secondly, the Authority has not analyzed the explanation offered by the Petitioner and found as of fact that the same is incorrect or otherwise and further that it is not a sufficient cause.

¶19

On both these contentions, we are in agreement with the Petitioner that the order impugned before us cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. Original copy of the order which was received by the Petitioner from the concerned Authority has been produced before us. In the first place, it is a cyclostyled copy and secondly inapplicable clauses have not been scored off at all. That itself reinforces the argument of the Petitioner that decision under Appeal suffers from nonapplication of mind.

¶20

Besides, we are in agreement with the argument of the Petitioner that the Authority who rejected the explanation offered by the Petitioner ought to record its opinion one way or the other as to the fact whether the excuse offered by the Petitioner was correct and then also to record opinion as to whether such excuse

¶21

¶22

11.wp.321-11

¶23

can be accepted as sufficient cause or otherwise. That is imperative in view of the language of Rule 2 of the statutory Rules framed under the Prisons Act. Inasmuch as, the expression used in the said Rules is : " .... Superintendent at his discretion with due regard to the circumstances of the case ..... ". Again in the later part, it is observed that “ If the Superintendent is satisfied that the contravention was for good or sufficient reasons, he may excuse the prisoner ."

¶24

In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. Instead, the Petitioner is relegated before the Appropriate Authority for reconsideration of his matter on merits afresh in accordance with law and keeping in mind the observations made by us hitherto. The Appropriate Authority shall take the final decision in the matter within four weeks from today.

¶25

Petition is disposed of on above terms.

¶26

(A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)

Liladhar Dattaram Nagvekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Liladhar Dattaram Nagvekar 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

Vinod Ganpatrai Khamitkar and Anr. Vs Ravi Kripalsingh Talreja and Anr.

Asha Mayala Sunnar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vitthal Vajir Solanki Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Damodar @ Balasaheb Dnyaneshwar Molak Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mansoor Iqbal Khot Vs Samina D/O Hasan Bangi and Anr.

Shri Vasant Mangu Pawra Vs the State of Maharashtra