Allowed

Jagannath Mahadeo Virkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC19 Jul 2013APPLN/1411/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court, finding the respondent Additional District Magistrate's report lacked application of mind and was delayed, corrected a prior order to mandate routine objective reports on prisoner parole, citing past records rather than mere apprehension.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application allowed; prior order corrected to mandate objective reports on prisoner parole based on past records; circular issued to authorities.

Jagannath Mahadeo Virkar Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1411 OF 2013
IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 880 OF 2012

¶4

Dr. Jagannath s/o. Mahadeo Virkar

¶5

.. PETITIONER/S

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others.

¶8

.. RESPONDENT/S

¶9

 Mr.R.N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate h/f. Mr. V.R.
Dhorde, Advocate for petitioner.

¶10

 Mrs.V.A. Shinde, APP for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶11

CORAM :- A.H. JOSHI &
 SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE :- 19th July, 2013.

¶12

ORDER :-

¶13

1]Service on respondent no.3 is dispensed

¶14

with.

¶15

2]Heard both sides. It is pointed out to
us that the order was passed by the DIG (Prisons)
on 16th January, 2012 while the report of the
applicant as Additional District Magistrate was
sent to the DIG (Prisons) on 2nd February, 2012.

¶16

3] The applicant is not able to deny and
dispute that he had simply reiterated the contents

¶17

¶18

of report received from the Superintendent of
Police ad-verbatim. All that the applicant urges
is that this act occurred due to lack of

¶19

experience.

¶20

4]We are of the view that the report by the
applicant was already delayed. Had the applicant
adverted to the record such error would not have

¶21

occurred. Fact remains, that the report does not

¶22

disclose application of mind.

¶23

5]Applicant has averred in present
application that, according to the applicant, his
posting as Additional District Magistrate at
Alibag was first and it was his first occasion to
deal with a case of present nature, in his life
and that in future, he shall be vigilant. In these
premises, it would be appropriate to correct the
order passed by this court in Criminal Writ
Petition No. 880 of 2012 on 4th October, 2012.

¶24

¶25

correction in the order dated 4th October, 2012 in
Criminal Writ Petition No. 880 of 2012, as follows
:-

¶26

[a]Para. No.8 and 12 be deleted.

¶27

[b]para. Nos. 9,10, 11,13 and 14 in order
dated 4th October, 2012, be numbered as para. Nos.
8,9,10, 12 and 13 respectively.

¶28

[c] Para. No. 11 as below newly numbered

¶29

para.10, be added, as follows :-

¶30

"11]It is necessary that the
District Superintendent of Police, as well as
District Magistrate in the State, be directed to
furnishobjectivereportsasregards
parol/furlough after taking into account the past
record of the prisoner, namely, his earlier
release and offences, if any, reported against
him, during the period of release. The report
ought not be furnished barely on the basis of
“apprehension or possibility of his commission of
offence”. We direct the Principal Secretary,
Home Department, to issue necessary circular to
the above effect to all Superintendents of
Police, District Magistrates and Additional

¶31

¶32

District Magistrates and Jail Authorities to take
adequate caution while preparing the report.”

¶33

[d]Figure 12, appearing in old para.14 and

¶34

new para.13 be corrected as para.11.

¶35

7]Criminal application is accordingly

¶36

allowed in above terms.

¶37

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH,J][A.H. JOSHI,J]

¶38

grt/-.

Jagannath Mahadeo Virkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagannath Mahadeo Virkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Khan Irfan Liyakatali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Chitralekha Chandrasen Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dattatraya Balaji Ghodke Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Gajanan Arjun Gite and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vilas Kishanrao Wahule Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vilas Kishanrao Wahule Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others