Dismissed

Sachin Ganpat Badambe v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jun 2013WP/1039/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenging the denial of remission benefits for extended furlough periods granted before a prospective amendment to prison rules. The court rejected the claim, holding the amendment was prospective and earlier communications had no merit.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed. Petitioners not entitled to count extended furlough period as remission.

Sachin Ganpat Badambe Vs the State of Mah and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 crwp 1039 & 1049/2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No.1039 of 2012

¶4

Sachin S/o Ganpat Badambe. .. Petitioner.

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents.

¶7

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

¶8

Smt. A.V. Gondhalekar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondents.

¶9

With

¶10

Criminal Writ Petition No.1049 of 2012

¶11

Deepak s/o Sudhakar Waklekar. .. Petitioner.

¶12

Versus

¶13

The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents.

¶14

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

¶15

Smt. A.V. Gondhalekar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent.

¶16

CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.

¶17

DATE : 13^th JUNE 2013

¶18

2 crwp 1039 & 1049/2012

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

Heard.

¶21

In these two petitions common issue is raised, therefore, they are decided by this common order.

¶22

The petitioners were released on furlough. Furlough was extended for 14 days more. The petitioners' contention is that the extended period of furlough shall also be considered for calculating the remission period. The petitioners place reliance on Notification dated 2^nd December 2003 issued by Home Department of the State of Maharashtra and the communication dated 9^th April, 2007 made by one of the officers.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the jail authorities have refused to grant benefit of remission of extended period of furlough.

¶24

Affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondents. In para 5 the deponent contends :

¶25

“5. I say that, by this petition, the Petitioner is praying that his extended period of furlough for 14 days be counted in view of the amendment for

¶26

3 crwp 1039 & 1049/2012

¶27

earlier period. I say that, the clarification was sought by the lower authority, therefore, by circular dated 7-7-2012 issued by Deputy Inspector General (Head Quarter) of Prison, Maharashtra State, Pune by which it is clarified that the said circular dated 23-4-2012 is applicable from the date of amendment in the rules. It is clarified that the said amendment is applicable in prospective manner and it has no retrospective effect and is not applicable prior to 23-4-2012. On the basis of that circular one more circular is issued by Deputy Inspector General, Prison, Aurangabad mentioning same thing that the said amendment is applicable from 23-4-2012. Here to annexed and marked as Exhibit R-1 collectively is the copy of circular dated 7-7-2012 and 20-7-2012.”

¶28

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that by notification dated 23^rd April 2012 the State had amended Rule 16 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. The amended rule would be applicable prospectively from the date of notification. The petitioners are not entitled to seek grant of such benefit of remission of extended furlough period on the basis of the interpretation put in the communication made by the Home Department in the year 2003. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on the Circular issued by the jail authorities clarifying its stand that the amended rule 16 would have prospective effect from 23^rd April 2012.

¶29

4 crwp 1039 & 1049/2012

¶30

We have perused the material placed and the notification issued by the State dated 23^rd April 2012. Notification dated 23^rd April 2012 amends rule 16 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules,1959 which reads as under.

¶31

“ 16. Furlough to be counted as remission of sentence .-- The furlough period of two weeks and extended furlough of 14 days shall be counted as a remission of sentence.”

¶32

The petitioners were released on furlough prior to the issuance of notification dated 23^rd April 2012. Earlier the petitioners were released on furlough and parole from time to time prior to 23^rd April 2012.

¶33

We are convinced with the submission that the petitioners are not entitled to have benefit on the basis of the orders, communications issued by the authorities which are annexed to the petition or a communication made by the Superintendent of Open Prison Paithan addressed to the Additional Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, MS, Pune.

¶34

5 crwp 1039 & 1049/2012

¶35

There is no merit in these petitions. The petitions are dismissed.

¶36

The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Aurangabad is directed to make payment of

¶37

fees to the counsel appointed for the petitioner.

¶38

Sd/- Sd/- (A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.)

¶39

rsl

Sachin Ganpat Badambe v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Ganpat Badambe 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandbee Sherjang Pathan Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Amirali Shaikh Nabi Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Mir Ahtesham Ali Mir Zafar Ali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rameshwar Madhukar Sarpe Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Sachin Ganpat Badambe C.NO.4444 Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepak Sudhakar Waklekar, C.No. 4310, Open District Prison, Paithan Vs the State of Maharashtra