Dismissed

Munaf Yusuf Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Mar 2014WP/3421/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A social worker sought directions to release an accused prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment, alleging illegalities by a Home Department officer. The bench examined the petitioner's locus standi and the State's subsequent reconsideration of the remission order.

What did the court decide?

No direction to release the accused or initiate action against the officer was granted; the petition was dismissed for lack of locus standi.

Munaf Yusuf Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

3421.12-wp.sxw

¶2

1/6

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3421 OF 2012

¶5

Munaf Yusuf Shaikh. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents.

¶6

Uday Warunjikar for the petitioner.

¶7

Mrs.A.S.Pai, APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND V.L.ACHLIYA, JJ.

¶9

RESERVED ON : 21^st February 2014. PRONOUNCED ON : 19^th March 2014.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

The petitioner, claiming to be a social worker, prays for direction to forthwith release accused Shafi Vaziruddin Qureshi who is suffering a life sentence.

¶12

By the judgment and order dated 30^th June 1994, the accused Shafi Qureshi was convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Pune for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C. and

¶13

2/6 3421.12-wp.sxw

¶14

sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. On the request made by Shafi Qureshi, the State authorities by communication dated 11^th July 2011 directed that he shall be released after completion of 22 years of imprisonment with remission. It is contended that the wife of Shafi Qureshi has been making several representations to various dignitaries for release of Shafi Qureshi. The petitioner contends that respondent No.2, a Section Officer from Home Department, Mantralaya is involved in illegalities and is exercising his discretion in respect of remission of accused persons without having any authority of law. The petitioner seeks direction to initiate action against respondent No.2.

¶15

The respondent- State has filed affidavit in reply of Shri B.B.Parkhi, Deputy Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mantralaya. The State has referred to an order dated 6^th July 2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: B.H.Marlapalle & U.D.Salvi, JJ.) dismissing Criminal Writ Petition No.945/2011. The said petition was filed by Shafi Qureshi. By the said order, the Division Bench had confirmed the order of remission passed on 28^th May 2009 thereby holding that Shafi Qureshi was required to undergo 24 years of sentence. Para-6 of the said order reads as under:

¶16

In the premises, we do not find any case to entertain this petition and the impugned order of

¶17

3/6 3421.12-wp.sxw

¶18

remission passed on 28th May, 2009 thereby holding that the petitioner is required to undergo a total of 24 years of sentence before his release and subject to his good conduct till the date of his release, is required to be confirmed. Hence, this petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶19

The respondent- State in the affidavit submits that after the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Jagdish , AIR 2010 SC 1690 and on the request of Shafi Qureshi the Government reconsidered the case of accused Shafi Qureshi and placed him in category 4(b) of Government Resolution, Home Department dated 15^th March 2010 and directed the concerned authority to release him after completion of 22 years. The State in its affidavit has given detailed account of the conduct of Shafi Qureshi while he was in jail. The representation made by Shafi Qureshi to the Hon'ble Governor has been rejected. The relevant part of para-16 of the affidavit in reply reads as under:

¶20

I say that the Petitioner is requesting to release prisoner Shafi Vazaruddin Quereshi forthwith, giving the examples of other prisoners who were released forthwith. The Hon'ble Governor has also rejected the request of the prisoner, still with the help of former ministers, members of legislative assembly, he is trying to put undue pressure for the premature release on Respondent No.2. But since the request of the prisoner is not as per the rules, it is turned down every time.

¶21

4/6 3421.12-wp.sxw

¶22

In respect of role attributed to respondent No.2- Shri R.I.Giri, the deponent has contended in the affidavit in reply that he being a Section Officer of Home Department conveys the decision of the Government after due approval made by the Minister of State, Home Department. The grievance of Shafi Qureshi in respect of respondent No.2 was brought to the notice of concerned Deputy/Joint Secretary and Principal Secretary (A. & S.).

¶23

The petitioner has filed affidavit in rejoinder to the affidavit filed by the State.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government has committed error in applying guidelines framed under G.R. dated 15^th March 2011 to the case of Shafi Qureshi. The said guidelines guidelines are applicable to the prisoners prospectively. According to the learned counsel, Shafi Qureshi was not given benefit which was given to the other prisoners. Learned counsel submitted that respondent No.2 exercises unreasonable discretion and wields powers which are not entrusted to him in deciding cases of remission.

¶25

Learned A.P.P. has placed reliance on the affidavit in reply filed by the State. It is submitted that though the Division Bench

¶26

5/6 3421.12-wp.sxw

¶27

had upheld the order passed by the State by an order dated 6^th July 2011, on the request of Shafi Qureshi, the State reconsidered the decision and had given benefit to Shafi Qureshi by categorizing him in 4(b) of Government Resolution and directing to release him after suffering 22 years of imprisonment. It is submitted that in view of the blameworthy conduct of the petitioner in jail, the petitioner does not deserve any leniency. The learned A.P.P. also raised the issue of locus standi of the petitioner to speak for Shafi Qureshi.

¶28

We have perused the record placed before us and considered the submissions advanced. At the first instance, we find that locus of the petitioner in praying for relief and seeking direction of remission in favour of a prisoner Shafi Qureshi is in question. Shafi Qureshi had earlier filed petition being Writ Petition No.945/2011. He was aware that the High Court had upheld the State's decision directing Shafi Qureshi to undergo 24 years of sentence. We have noticed that neither Shafi Qureshi nor State had approached this Court for seeking clarification, permission to review or reconsider the decision of the State which was subject matter of challenge in the proceeding of Criminal Writ Petition No.945/2011. The order passed by this court had become final. One of the contentions of the State is that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Jagdish (supra) and on the request of Shafi Qureshi, the State reconsidered the request of

¶29

6/6 3421.12-wp.sxw

¶30

Shafi Qureshi. The fact remains that the Division Bench of this Court had passed order on 6^th July 2011 which was much after the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Jagdish (supra).

¶31

The conduct of Shafi Qureshi in jail, described in detail by the State in its affidavit in reply, seems to be not at all satisfactory. Shafi Qureshi suffered punishment for violating jail regulations. The State authority, in reply went on to state that with the help of former ministers and members of legislative assembly Shafi Qureshi tried to put pressure on respondent No.2.

¶32

The another question is whether the State was entitled to reconsider the case of Shafi Qureshi after the decision of High Court. Considering the facts of the case, affidavit in reply filed by the State and the material brought on record, we do not find that the prisoner requires any further intervention on any ground. In exercise of writ jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution we are not inclined to entertain this petition. Petition is dismissed.

¶33

(V.L.ACHLIYA, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶34

Sanjay Nanoskar, P.S..

Munaf Yusuf Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munaf Yusuf Shaikh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Firoz Iqbal Kapdi and Ors. Vs Farhana Firoz Kapdi and Anr.

Rohitrai Harkishan Mehra and Ors. Vs Reena Rohit Mehta and Anr.

Nitin Shankar Masal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Imran Irfan Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vijaysingh Chauhan Vs the Dy. Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Mohammed Ali Fakruddin Sayyed Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Matunga Division