Dismissed

Kanyaiyya Jawahar Pal v. the State of Maharashtra Thr., Its Secretary, Department of Home, Nantralaya, MUMBAI-32. and 3 Othe

Bombay HC23 Aug 2021WP/373/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought remission and decision on a representation, claiming benefit under a 2017 Government Resolution. The respondent opposed, citing the petitioner's conviction under POCSO and IPC. The court dismissed the petition on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as there is no merit; petitioner not entitled to remission due to POCSO conviction.

_______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directionsCourt's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.

By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking a direction to decide representation dated 25.10.2020, pending before respondent no.2 and further direction to grant remission of three months to the petitioner, in view of Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017

Respondent no.2 has filed reply stating that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3, 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of remission. Respondent no.2 has placed on record copy of Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017. Third clause of the said resolution and in particular sub clause (iii), disqualifies a person having been convicted for the offence under the Central Act.

From the reply filed by respondent no.2, it appears that in addition to the petitioner being convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC, the petitioner has also been convicted for the offence under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for remission, as prayed for. There is no merit in the petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.

Mrs. D. I.Charlewar, learned counsel appointed to represent the petitioner shall be paid an amount of Rs.1500/- towards her professional fees and expenses by the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Nagpur.

Kanyaiyya Jawahar Pal v. the State of Maharashtra Thr., Its Secretary, Department of Home, Nantralaya, MUMBAI-32. and 3 Othe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanyaiyya Jawahar Pal v. the State of Maharashtra Thr., Its Secretary, Department of Home, Nantralaya, MUMBAI-32. and 3 Othe

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

Kalu Sahdev Embadwar Vs Dig Prisons, East Region, Nagpur and Another

Suhas Anil Khairkar Vs the Deputy General (Prisons) (East) Nagpur., and Another

Pranab Pratul Mandal Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., P.S. Aheri and One

Akash S/O Rajabal Yenurkar Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ballarsha Dist.Chandrapur and Another

Gopal Prakash Sawarkar Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Police Station Officer, Police Station Civil Lines Akola and Another

Hansaraj S/O. Ishwar Parekar (in Jail) Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer Police Station Ghuggus Dist. Chandrapur