Petitioner returned late after a parole period. High Court quashed the excessive 300-day remission cut, holding it unjust, and modified the order to reduce the cut to 60 days equitably.
Modifying the punishment order dated 19.09.2016 to reduce remission cut from 300 days to 60 days; Writ Petition partly allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Rane 1 / 4 WP-1389-2019 (SR.8) 27.8.2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1389 OF 2019
Shiv Chandrama Loni … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra … .Respondent
****
Mr. Udayan L. Shah, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the respondent-State.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, &
SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.
Tuesday, 27th August, 2019.
P.C. :
1. Petitioner proceeded on parole leave for
attending his wife suffering from appendicitison
22nd December, 2015. He was to report back on 20th
Rane
2 / 4 WP-1389-2019 (SR.8) 27.8.2019
January, 2016. On 4th January, 2016 he sought
extension of thirty days. On 4th February, 2016 he
sought other extension of thirty days.
2. He has reported back voluntarily, after
the expiry of second extension of 21st March, 2016.
3. His first extension was rejected on 30th
May, 2016 i.e. more than two months after his return
to prison. Second extension appears to have been
rejected before that, i.e. on 2nd March, 2016 itself.
Second extension is before rejection of first
extension, and also before return of prisoner back
to prison. However, it is after second span of
extension of thirty days had commenced after 21st
February, 2016. Because of this late return, an
order of prison punishment has also been passed on
19th September, 2016. Three hundred days of his
Rane 3 / 4 WP-1389-2019 (SR.8) 27.8.2019
remission has been cut by invoking the maximum
possible punishment.
4. The petitioner claims that, he had
supplied Medical Certificates pointing out the
health condition of his wife to the Divisional
Commissioner. First Certificate is dated 8th June,
2015 and later Certificate is dated 1st February,
2016. Certificate dated 8th June, 2015 is obviously
for the purposes of seeking parole. This implies
that, no Certificate was submitted while seeking
first extension on 4th January, 2016. However, while
seeking second extension, Certificate dated 1st
February, 2016 may have been submitted to
authorities. The Authorities do not consider the
above mentioned relevant dates or impact thereof.
Second extension could not have been rejected
before taking decision on first extension
Rane 4 / 4 WP-1389-2019 (SR.8) 27.8.2019
application.
5. The Learned APP is also right when he
submits that in absence of extension order, the
petitioner was duty bound to report immediately.
6. In this situation, we find that interest of
justice can be met with by reducing the cut in
remission from 300 days to 60 days i.e. one day cut
in remission for each one day of late reporting.
7. Thus, we modify the order of punishment
dated 19th September, 2016 accordingly and partly
allow the Writ Petition and dispose of the same.
8. Order be communicated to the prisoner in
jail.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.) (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the reduction in remission days should be equitable based on the duration of late reporting rather than fixed at maximum
Whether to modify the existing prison punishment order to balance justice with strict reporting norms
Whether the petitioner's late return after voluntary reporting warrants maximum cut in remission
Shiv Chandrama Loni
The State of Maharashtra
B.P. Dharadhikari
Sandeep K. Shinde
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court