Allowed

Kirloskar Nirgel Shinde v. the Superintent Kolhapur Central Prison and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Mar 2012WP/151/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal writ petition challenging an order striking the petitioner's name from the remission register. The High Court set aside the order for non-compliance with Rule 23 of Maharashtra Prison Remission System Rules, which mandates prior sanction from the Inspector General of Police.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed. Order dated 18th October 2010 set aside. Superintendent directed to take action as per the rules.

Kirloskar Nirgel Shinde Vs the Superintent… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 WP No.151/12

¶2

Tilak

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.151 of 2012

¶5

Kirloskar Nirgel Shinde ... Petitioner versus The Superintendent Kolhapur Central Prison and anr ... Respondents

¶6

Mr. Prakash Naik, Amicus Curiae for the petitioner Mrs.M.H. Mhatre, APP for the respondent State.

¶7

CORAM : V.M.KANADE AND P.D.KODE, JJ DATED : 26^th March 2012.

¶8

P.C.

¶9

Heard Shri Prakash Naik appointed as amicus curiae to assist this court since the advocate appointed to appear on behalf of the petitioner is absent. We have heard learned APP for the State.

¶10

The petitioner has sent a letter through jail challenging the order passed by the Superintendent, Kolhapur Central Prison dated 18^th October 2010. By the said order, the petitioner’s name has been struck off from the remission register as a result of which the petitioner would not be entitled to avail of the remissions which are earned by a prisoner under the said Prison Rules. Shri Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to Rule no.23 of Maharashtra Prison Remission System Rules (hereinafter referred to as “the said Rules”) He submitted that before passing the

¶11

2 WP No.151/12

¶12

impugned order, the Superintendent has to obtain previous sanction of the Inspector General of Police. It is submitted that the Superintendent Kolhapur Central Prison has not complied with the said mandatory provision and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that in the order itself, it is mentioned that the order would become effective only after approval is granted by the District and Sessions Judge, Kolhapur.

¶13

In our view, there is much substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perusal of the said Rule 23 indicates that the previous sanction of Inspector General of Police has to be obtained. Perusal of the order clearly indicates that no reference has been made to the previous sanction of Inspector General of Police and therefore, the impugned order will have to be set aside.

¶14

Petition is allowed. Order dated 18^th October 2010 is set aside. Superintendent is directed to take action in accordance with the provisions laid down under the said rules. Petition is allowed. Copy of the order be communicated to the petitioner..

¶15

We express our appreciation for the assistance given to us by Shri Prakash Naik.

¶16

(P.D.KODE, J)

¶17

(V.M.KANADE,J)

Kirloskar Nirgel Shinde v. the Superintent Kolhapur Central Prison and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kirloskar Nirgel Shinde v. the Superintent Kolhapur Central Prison and Anr.

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

Akbar Kachru Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Chandan Rajendra Dude Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shinde Sarjerao Mahadev Vs Kamal Luxman Jadhav and Ors.

Ratnaprabha Mallinath Bandichhode Vs the Senior Inspector of Police Akkalkot North Police Station and Anr.

Deepak @ Babu Shankar Gavkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hashmat Ali Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra