Allowed

Vitthal Eknath Adlinge v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC1 Aug 2016WP/2486/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought to count extended furlough periods from 2008 and 2009 as remission. Relying on Shelke and the 2012 amendment to Prisons Rule 16, the Court held that extended furlough qualifies as remission despite being granted before the amendment.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute granting benefit of amended Rule 16 to count extended furlough as remission.

Vitthal Eknath Adlinge Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

9b. cri wp 2486-16.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2486 OF 2016

¶5

Vitthal Eknath Adlinge

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

.. Respondent

¶10

Appearances
Ms. Rohini Dandekar	Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
Mrs. U.V. Kejriwal	APP for the State

¶11

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &

¶12

MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 1, 2016.

¶13

ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

¶14

Heard both sides.

¶15

Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶16

The case of the petitioner is that he was granted

¶17

furlough in the year 2008. Pursuant to the order granting

¶18

furlough, the petitioner was released on furlough on 3.7.2008

¶19

for a period of 14 days. The said period was later extended

¶20

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4

¶21

9b. cri wp 2486-16.doc

¶22

by a period of 14 days. The petitioner surrendered back to the prison on the due date i.e 1.8.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner was released on furlough on 22.8.2009 for a period of 14 days. The said period was extended by a period of 14 days. The petitioner surrendered back to the prison on the due date i.e on 20.9.2009. The prayer of the petitioner is that this extended period of furlough on two occasions i.e in

¶23

the year 2008 and 2009 be counted towards his remission.

¶24

The petitioner has relied on amended Rule 16 of The Prisons

¶25

(Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959.

¶26

On the other hand, learned APP has submitted that the petitioner was granted extension of furlough in the year 2008 and 2009 and at that time, under Rule 16 which was in

¶27

existence in the year 2008-2009, extension of furlough could not be counted as remission. Rule 16 as it then was read as

¶28

under:-

¶29

"16. Furlough to be counted as remission of sentence:- The furlough period shall be counted as a remission of sentence :

¶30

Provided that where any furlough period has been

¶31

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4

¶32

9b. cri wp 2486-16.doc

¶33

extended under Note 4 below rule 3 or under rule 13, the period of extensions shall not be counted as a remission of sentence."

¶34

Miss. Dandekar pointed out that thereafter, Rule 16

¶35

was amended on 23.4.2012 and the amended Rule 16 reads thus:-

¶36

"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."

¶37

Miss. Dandekar submitted that in view of amended Rule 16, the extension of furlough granted to the petitioner has to

¶38

be counted as remission of sentence. Learned APP submitted that the amendment came into existence in April 2012, hence, it cannot be made applicable to extension of furlough

¶39

which was granted in the year 2008 and 2009.

¶40

Similar question arose before this Court in the case of

¶41

Jagannath Raghunath Shelke Vs. The State of Maharashtra¹ . In the said case, it was held that benefit of

¶42

amended Rule 16 would have to be given in case of extended period of furlough of 14 days granted prior to 1 Writ Petition No. 1485 of 2013 decided on 24.12.2013 [ Coram : A.S. Oka & S.C. Gupte, JJ)

¶43

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4

¶44

9b. cri wp 2486-16.doc

¶45

23.4.2012. The case of the present petitioner is the same as

¶46

that of Jagannath Raghunath Shelke, hence, the said decision

¶47

would apply to the facts of the present case on all fours. Thus, the petitioner would have to be given benefit of amended Rule 16 even though the extended period of furlough was in the year 2008 and 2009.

¶48

Accordingly, Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶49

Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who

¶50

is in Yerwada Open District Prison, Pune.

¶51

Fees to be paid to the appointed Advocate are

¶52

quantified at Rs. 2500/-.

¶53

[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]

¶54

jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4

Vitthal Eknath Adlinge v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vitthal Eknath Adlinge v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Macchindra Haridas Sakhare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mazhar Maksud Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nitin Shantilal Modha Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Nandu Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dilip Digambar Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Firoj Abdul Ajij Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra