Dismissed

Pravin Rajaram Shinde v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Feb 2012WP/828/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad dismissed two criminal writ petitions challenging the exclusion of extended furlough periods from sentence remission calculations under specific Prisons Rules, holding no merit in the petitioners' claims.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed; the filing of opinion or amendment to include extended furlough in remission was left to the discretion of the State Government.

Pravin Rajaram Shinde Vs the State of Mah and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 Cri. WPs 828 & 892 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No.828 of 2011

¶4

Pravin Rajaram Shinde .. Petitioner.

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents.

¶7

Shri. Rajendra D. Sanap, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶8

Smt. V.A. Shinde, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶9

With

¶10

Criminal Writ Petition No.892 of 2011

¶11

Deepak Sudhakar Waklekar .. Petitioner.

¶12

Versus

¶13

The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents.

¶14

Shri. Rajendra D. Sanap, Advocate, appointed for the petitioner.

¶15

Smt. V.A. Shinde, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶16

CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & T.V. NALAWADE, JJ.

¶17

DATE 9^th FEBRUARY 2012

¶18

2 Cri. WPs 828 & 892 of 2011

¶19

PER COURT :

¶20

Heard.

¶21

The petitioners' contention is that in view of the provisions of Rule 13 and Rule 16 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, extended period of furlough as prescribed under amended Rule 13 of the Rules, 1959 be counted for the purpose of remission. The counsel further submits that other prisoners got such benefit. Reliance is placed on opinion of the Research Officer attached to the office of the Inspector General of Prisons and the internal communication between the jail authorities. It is urged before us that as furlough period is counted for the purpose of remission extended period of furlough shall also be counted for the purpose of remission.

¶22

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed on record a communication made by the State in its Home Department dated 13-1-2012 addressed to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor stating therein that in view of the order passed in Criminal Writ Petition Nos.

¶23

3 Cri. WPs 828 & 892 of 2011

¶24

848/2011 and 721/2011, the State is to decide to amend rule 16 of the Rules, 1959 on the issue raised by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: A.H. Joshi and A.R. Joshi, JJ.) in the order dated 18^th October 2011 passed in Criminal Writ Petition Nos.699/2011 and 828/2011.

¶25

Rule 13 of the Rules, 1959 with its amendment brought into effect reads as under:--

¶26

“ 13. Extension of the period of furlough:- Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing rules, the Sanctioning Authority may, on the application of a prisoner or otherwise, by an order in writing extend the period of furlough. The sanctioning authority may determine the extension of furlough leave shall be granted for only 14 days only once in a calender year and no further extension shall be granted to prisoner on the same conditions.”

¶27

Rule 16 of the Rules of 1959 reads as under :-

¶28

“ 16. Furlough to be counted as remission of sentence - The furlough period shall be counted as a remission of sentence : Provided that where any furlough period has been extended under Note 4 below rule 3 or under rule 13, the period of extension shall not be counted as a remission of sentence.”

¶29

4 Cri. WPs 828 & 892 of 2011

¶30

Nothing is placed on record of this Court to indicate that rule 16 of the Rules 1959 has been amended to read that the extended period of furlough of 14 days could also be counted for remission. Any interpretation of Rule 16, by way of order or opinion, would be contrary to the provisions of Rule 16 of Rules 1959, which are framed in exercise of powers conferred under the Prisons Act 1894 in its application to the State of Bombay. In view of the provisions of Rule 16 the period of extended period of furlough which could not be counted for remission of sentence.

¶31

We, therefore, observe that the petitioners are

¶32

not entitled to claim remission of the extended period of furlough as prescribed under the provisions of Rule 13 and Rule 16. It is clarified that the State Government is free to deal with the issue as to whether an amendment to Rule 16 of Rules of 1959 is necessary to be brought into to provide benefit of remission of the extended period of furlough. We have not expressed any opinion on the said issue.

¶33

5 Cri. WPs 828 & 892 of 2011

¶34

There is no merit in both the writ petitions. The petitions are dismissed. Authenticated copy of the order be given to the Additional Public Prosecutor for forwarding the same to the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra; the Inspect General of Prisons and the Deputy Inspectors General of Prisons in the State.

¶35

The learned counsel Shri. R.D. Sanap was appointed for petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.892 of 2011. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Aurangabad, to pay professional fees to the counsel appointed as per rules.

¶36

Sd/- Sd/- (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.)

¶37

rsl

Pravin Rajaram Shinde v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravin Rajaram Shinde v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Maharu Zope Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Malti Kamalakar Deshpande and Anr. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Malti Kamalakar Deshpande and Anr. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Balasaheb Bapurao Choure Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Jaywant Pandurang Surve, C.No. 4183 Open Jail Paithan Vs the State of Mah

Annasaheb Bhimraj Gadhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.