Partly allowed

Santosh S/O. Suryabhan Kale (C-6552) v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Feb 2019WP/1710/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A prisoner convicted under IPC sections sought remission under the Government Resolution dated 3.6.2017 for Dr. Ambedkar's birth anniversary. The High Court held the Additional Sessions Judge's negative opinion was faulty for ignoring the Resolution and remanded the matter for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Petition partly allowed; matter remitted to Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, for reconsideration within eight weeks.

Santosh S/O. Suryabhan Kale (C-6552) Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1710.18Cri.WP

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1710 OF 2018

¶5

Santosh s/o. Suryabhan Kale

¶6

[C-6552]
Central Prison, Aurangabad.

¶7

 .. PETITIONER

¶8

 VERSUS

¶9

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶10

2. The State of Maharashtra, Through Superintendent Central Prison, Aurangabad.

¶11

.. RESPONDENTS

¶12

...

¶13

Mr.R.A.Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.D.R.Kale, APP for the Respondent/State

¶14

...

¶15

 R.G.AVACHAT,JJ.

¶16

Reserved on : 06.02.2019

¶17

 Pronounced on : 08.02.2019

¶18

JUDGMENT: [Per S.S.Shinde, J.]:

¶19

1]Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable

¶20

forthwith, and heard finally with the consent
of the parties.

¶21

1710.18Cri.WP

¶22

¶23

2]The petitioner, who is a prisoner

¶24

undergoing a sentence of 23 years

¶25

imprisonment, for having committed an offence
punishable under Sections 376, 395, 354, 342,

¶26

324, 509 of the I.P.C., has filed this

¶27

Petition, seeking benefit of remission of

¶28

three months declared by the State Government

¶29

by Resolution dated 3rd June, 2017, on account
of 125th birth anniversary of Dr.Babasaheb

¶30

Ambedkar. However, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge in his report dated 17.07.2017

¶31

[Exhibit-B] gave an opinion that he was not

¶32

entitled to the remission under that
Government Resolution. Being aggrieved, the
petitioner is before this Court.

¶33

3]The Government Resolution dated 3rd
June, 2017, [Exhibit-A] provides that on
account of 125thbirth anniversary of

¶34

Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar, under the enabling
provision contained in Section 433 (A) of the

¶35

¶36

1710.18Cri.WP

¶37

Criminal Procedure Code, inter alia a

¶38

prisoner, who has been sentenced to life
imprisonment, is entitled to remission to the
extent of three months. However, some
categories of prisoners have been excluded
from the benefit of such remission which have
been enlisted as under:

¶39

i]Prisoners undergoing sentence under
the provisions of 106 of 110 of the
Cr.P.C.

¶40

ii]Prisoners undergoing sentence for
the offence punishable under Section
121 to 130 of the I.P.C.

¶41

iii]Prisoners undergoing sentence for
the offences under the Central
enactment.

¶42

iv]Prisoners in the Civil Prison.

¶43

v]Children from the remand home.

¶44

vi] Prisoners who are outside the jail unauthorisedly.

¶45

1710.18Cri.WP

¶46

¶47

It is thus apparent that except the

¶48

prisoners of these categories the rest of the
prisoners are entitled to the benefit of
remission under this Government Resolution
dated 3rd June, 2017.

¶49

4] Ex facie , the petitioner, who is a

¶50

prisoner undergoing a sentence of 23 years

¶51

imprisonment, does not fall into any of these
categories. Still, the learned Additional

¶52

Sessions Judge in his opinion dated 17^th July, 2017, has overlooked these aspects and for the reasons de hors the Government Resolution

¶53

has opined that the petitioner is not
entitled to any remission. He seems to have
misdirected himself in considering the
gravity of the crime when the Government

¶54

Resolution does not admit of any such

¶55

parameter for extending the benefit. Even a

¶56

life convict is entitled to remission to the

¶57

extent of three months. It is also apparent

¶58

1710.18Cri.WP

¶59

¶60

that the learned Additional Sessions Judge
for the reasons best known to him has not at
all referred to the Government Resolution
dated 3rd June, 2017. Had his attention been
brought to it, we are sure the learned Judge
would not have given a negative opinion. Be
that as it may, the opinion expressed by the

¶61

learned Additional Sessions Judge in
ignorance of or by overlooking the Government
Resolution is clearly faulty.

¶62

5]In the light of discussion herein
above, the Petition is partly allowed. The
matter is remitted back to the Additional

¶63

Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, for re-
consideration. The Additional Sessions Judge,
Ahmednagar, to re-consider the entire issue,
keeping in view the Government Resolution
dated 3rd June, 2017, and take decision as
expeditiously as possible, however, within
eight weeks from the date of receipt of this
order.

¶64

¶65

1710.18Cri.WP

¶66

6]Rule is made absolute on above
terms. Accordingly, the Petition stands
disposed of.

¶67

 [R.G.AVACHAT] [S.S.SHINDE]
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶68

DDC

Santosh S/O. Suryabhan Kale (C-6552) v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh S/O. Suryabhan Kale (C-6552) 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

Yashwant S/O. Devidasrao Bhore Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramrao Bandurao Raut Vs the Gram Panchayat Thru Village Devt Officer Kitti Adgaon Tq Majalgaon Dist Beed and Others

Balasaheb S/O. Sambhaji Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Amol Ramdas Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Pritilal S/O. Ramlal Giri and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jiva @ Jivan S/O. Bhavsing Giri and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.