Allowed

Ambarishi S/O. Shripadrao Patil (C-4679) v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Apr 2018WP/60/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, directing release of an elderly convict. It held that a specific Medical Committee, not a general board, must assess release eligibility. The Court mandated periodic meetings of this Committee by prison authorities.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Writ Petition allowed; Petitioner directed to be produced before the Medical Committee constituted under the Government Resolution dated 10.01.2006 for decision on premature release.

Ambarishi S/O. Shripadrao Patil (C-4679) Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(Judgment) (1) Cri. W.P. No. 0060 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No. 0060 of 2018

¶4

District : Aurangabad

¶5

Ambarishi s/o. Shripadrao Patil
(C-4679),
Central Prison, Aurangabad. .. Petitioner.

¶6

versus

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Aurangabad.

¶8

2. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Home Department (Prison), Mumbai - 400 005. .. Respondents.

¶9

...........

¶10

Mr. Rupesh A. Jaiswal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. S.W. Munde, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for respondent nos.01 and 02.

¶12

...........

¶13

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &

¶14

 SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.

¶15

 DATE : 03RD APRIL 2018

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT [Per Prasanna B. Varale, J.] :

¶17

Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner
and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the
respondents.

¶18

02.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By

¶19

(Judgment) (2) Cri. W.P. No. 0060 of 2018

¶20

consent, heard finally.

¶21

03.Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is convict lodged at Central
Prison, Aurangabad. The petitioner was awarded
conviction by the judgment and order of the learned
Sessions Judge, Solapur. Learned Advocate for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner completed
his actual imprisonment of 14 years and 05 months.
He invited our attention to the prayers in the
petition which read as under :-

¶22

(A) To allow the petition and thereby direct the respondent no.01 to release petitioner in view of Government Resolution dated 10.01.2006, and

¶23

(B) To direct the respondent no.01 to produce petitioner before the Medical Committee as provided in Government Resolution dated 10.01.2006.

¶24

Learned Advocate for the petitioner also placed heavy
reliance on the resolution of the State Government
placed on record, issued by its Home Department,
dated 10.01.2006. Learned Advocate for the
petitioner fairly submitted that the prayer "A" is an
ultimate prayer and the prerequisite of prayer "A" is
the compliance of prayer "B". Thus, learned Advocate
for the petitioner prayed for directions in terms of
prayer "B".

¶25

04.On perusal of the Government Resolution

¶26

(Judgment) (3) Cri. W.P. No. 0060 of 2018

¶27

dated 10.01.2006, we find that the State Government
with a laudable object, issued the resolution to
grant benefit to the convicts who are in the prison
and are of 65 years' age and above as well female
convicts aged 60 years and above, who are infirm.
The resolution makes it clear that the benefits are
granted subject to certain conditions. The

¶28

resolution also makes it clear, that a class of
prisoners are not entitled for grant of these
benefits and the details are at clause 3 of the
resolution. Then there is a reference which can be
termed as a prerequisite for grant of benefits. It
reads thus :-

¶29

" In view of the earlier Government Resolution dated 31.12.1999, the convicts above 65 years of age and in view of the Government Resolution dated 21.03.2005, the female convicts of the age above 60 years are entitled for the release if necessary certificate is issued by a duly constituted Medical Committee. "

¶30

Aforesaid clause further refers to the constitution of Medical Committee. The Committee consists of five members. The District Civil Surgeon seems to be the ex officio Chairman of the Committee. Other members include, District Health Officer, Jail Superintendent and Medical Officer of the Prison. The Additional Senior Prison Officer is the Member Secretary of the Committee. Then it refers to a situation namely, if the Civil Surgeon is unable to attend the meeting of the Committee, the Committee would conduct the

¶31

(Judgment) (4) Cri. W.P. No. 0060 of 2018

¶32

meeting under the Chairmanship of the District Health
Officer. It then also refers to the mandatory
attendance of either the District Civil Surgeon or
the District Medical Officer and then it states that
the Committee in addition may take into consideration
other medical certificate, to take a decision of the
release of the prisoners who are male above 65 years
and above 60 years of age female and infirm. Then
the resolution states that the resolution is issued
by the State Government by exercising powers under
Section 432(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It
may not be out of place to state that the resolution
is a complete streamlined procedure giving guidance
to the authorities to arrive at a conclusion.

¶33

05.Now, turning to the case of the petitioner,
learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, on instructions,
submitted before us, that the petitioner completed
actual imprisonment of 14 years, 03 months and 19
days. Thus, there cannot be any dispute regarding
compliance of first condition of the resolution dated
10.01.2006. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor then
invited our attention to the certificate issued by
the Medical Board. The certificate is of 29.05.2017.
This is the Medical Board consisting of three Medical
Officers and this Medical Board is at Government
Medical College & Hospital at Aurangabad. The
certificate reads that on conducting careful clinical
and radiological examination, the approximate bone
age of the petitioner is above 60 years. Then it
refers to providing treatment for some ailment being

¶34

(Judgment) (5) Cri. W.P. No. 0060 of 2018

¶35

suffered by the petitioner. It may not be necessary
for us to refer here, the ailment suffered by the
petitioner. Even taking the certificate as it is, it
only refers that the petitioner is a person of above
60 years of age.

¶36

06.Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor made an
attempt to submit before this Court, that as the
Medical Board issued certificate to the petitioner,
that he is above 60 years of age and is a physically
fit person, the petitioner is not entitled for his
premature release. The communication of 04.02.2018
is relied on by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor
in support of his submissions. The said
communication then refers that the orders from the
State Government of premature release of the
petitioner are awaited.

¶37

07.We fail to understand the opposition of the
learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. In case of the
petitioner, the document which is relied on by the
learned Addl. Public Prosecutor is a certificate by
the Medical Board. It is not an opinion formed by
the Committee as constituted under the Government
Resolution dated 10.01.2006. As we have referred to
the constitution of the Medical Committee in detail,
it may not be necessary for us to reiterate the same.
Suffice it to say, that the constitution of the
Committee expects not only the Medical Officers as
like in the certificate issued by the Medical Board,
but it consists of three Medical Officers plus two

¶38

(Judgment) (6) Cri. W.P. No. 0060 of 2018

¶39

other Members and the Committee is expected to form
an opinion on appreciation of the material. Any
certificate, if provided by the convict or called for
by the prison authorities would be an additional
material for the decision to be arrived at by the
Medical Committee. In case of the petitioner, no
such opinion is expressed by the Medical Committee as
referred to in the Government Resolution dated
10.01.2006.

¶40

08.When we put a query to the learned Addl.
Public Prosecutor, that whether the Medical Committee
as per the Government Resolution dated 10.01.2006,
formed at each region, conducts its periodical
meetings for deciding the cases of prisoners, learned
Addl. Public Prosecutor informed us, that as and when
Medical Committee is called upon, the Committee takes
decision. In our opinion, this is not the object of
the Government Resolution dated 10.01.2006. If the
Committee is constituted for taking decision for
premature release of the prisoners who are old and
infirm, then such cases must be kept before the
Committee at periodical intervals. The Medical
Committee also consists of a Member Secretary who is
the Additional Senior Prison Officer. Then
Superintendent of Prison is one of the Member of the
Medical Committee. If these two persons are integral
part of the Committee, nothing prevents the prison
authorities to collect data which is available with
them in the respective prisons and put such cases
periodically before the Medical Committee so that the

¶41

(Judgment) (7) Cri. W.P. No. 0060 of 2018

¶42

Committee can take decision timely in such cases. If
the Medical Committee waits for an invitation from
the prison authorities and if the prison authorities
are left at their will, to call the Medical Committee
meetings, in our opinion, the object of the
Government Resolution is frustrated. Considering
this fact, we are of the opinion that the prison
authorities and more particularly, two members of the
Medical Committee namely, Superintendent of Prison
and Additional Senior Prison Officer, who are members
of the Medical Committee, to collect necessary
information or data and to put up such cases before
the Medical Committee periodically, at least, once in
three months. Thus, at least four meetings of the
Medical Committee in each calendar year are required
to be held.

¶43

09.Now, with these factual aspects, if we turn
to the petition, we see no impediment for allowing
the petition in terms of prayer clause "B". The
petitioner is coming with a case, that he is above 65
years of age and to support his contention, the
petitioner is relying on the copy of the school
leaving certificate which is placed on record at
Exhibit "B". In the said school leaving certificate,
the birth date of the petitioner is shown as 01st
April 1952. Even the Medical Board states that the
petitioner is above 60 years of age.

¶44

10.In view of the foregoing discussion, the
criminal writ petition is allowed.

¶45

(Judgment) (8) Cri. W.P. No. 0060 of 2018

¶46

The petitioner - convict is directed to be
produced before the Medical Committee as provided in
the Government Resolution dated 10.01.2006, as
expeditiously as possible, and the Committee shall
take its decision. In turn, the decision taken by
the Medical Committee shall be forwarded with the;
proposal of premature release to the State Government
and the State Government shall decide the proposal
with the requisite material, as expeditiously as
possible.

¶47

11.Before parting with the judgment, we expect
that our direction to conduct the periodical meetings
by the Medical Committee as constituted under the
Government Resolution dated 10.01.2006 shall be
followed hereafter. We hope and trust, that the
Director General of Prisons would personally look
into the matter and see that there is proper
compliance of the directions of this Court.

¶48

12.Rule made absolute in the above terms.

¶49

13.Copy of this judgment be sent to all prison
authorities in the State of Maharashtra.

¶50

( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi ) ( Prasanna B. Varale )
JUDGE JUDGE

¶51

...........

¶52

puranik / CRIWP60.18

Ambarishi S/O. Shripadrao Patil (C-4679) v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambarishi S/O. Shripadrao Patil (C-4679) v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Rajnikant S/O. Ramnarayan Pandey Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Latif Hasan Madari (C-9193) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jafar Abdul Haq Shaikh Vs K. Subramanyam, Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralay, Mumbai and Others

Dr. Nilesh S/O. Hiralal Jaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shaikh Ashpak S/O. Shaikh Hassan (C-8138) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nimba Pundlik Patil (C-7476) Vs the State of Maharashtra