Allowed

Raju @ Rajendra Natthuji Fule v. State of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary Home Dep. Mantralaya MUMBAI-32 and Another

Bombay HC9 Jun 2022WP/118/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition seeking special remission granted under the Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017 for Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar's 125th birth anniversary. The court quashed the refusal based on the characterization of the offense as heinous, directing the respondents to grant remission.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner entitled to remission in his sentence as per Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017.

Raju @ Rajendra Natthuji Fule Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

34-cr.wp 118-22-

¶2

1/3

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.118 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER :- Raju @ Rajendra Natthuji Fule, Aged about 47 years, Convict No.C-9975, detained in Central Prison Nagpur.

¶6

...VERSUS...

¶7

RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶8

The Superintendent of Central Prison, Nagpur.

¶9

Mr.A.S.Siddiqui, appointed counsel for the petitioner. Ms. N.R.Tripathi, APP for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶10

CORAM : SUNIL B.SHUKRE &

¶11

G.A.SANAP, JJ. DATE : 09.06.2022.

¶12

O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per :Sunil B.Shukre, J.)

¶13

Heard.

¶14

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

¶15

by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶16

The respondents have refused to grant benefit of the

Kavita

2/3

34-cr.wp 118-22-

Government Resolution dated 03.06.20167, which prescribes the period of remission to be given in sentences awarded to the convicts as a special case, to celebrate the 125^th birth anniversary of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar only on the ground that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur found that the offence committed by the petitioner and for which he has been convicted is heinous.

¶21

We have gone through the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur and we find that although the learned Sessions Judge holds that the petitioner is otherwise entitled for the remission, the petitioner should not be given benefit of any remission because he has been to be found to be guilty of heinous crime, the opinion is clearly against the para meters prescribed in the Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017. It does not say anywhere that in case of conviction awarded for heinous crime, special remission as per the Government Resolution be not granted. It also does not list the categories of the offences which are considered to be heinous. It only lists certain offences at clauses (i) to (vi) of the Government Resolution in respect of

¶22

Kavita

¶23

34-cr.wp 118-223/3

¶24

which the prisoners are not entitled to receive special remission. The offence for which he has been found to be guilty does not fall in any of these clauses. Therefore, we find that the petitioner is entitled to receive benefit of Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017.

¶25

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.11.2021 is hereby quashed and set aside. It is directed that the petitioner be given remission in his sentence awarded to him in terms of the Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017.

¶26

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

¶27

Remuneration of Rs.3000/- be paid to the learned

¶28

appointed counsel.

¶29

(G.A.SANAP, J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE,J)

¶30

Kavita

Raju @ Rajendra Natthuji Fule v. State of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary Home Dep. Mantralaya MUMBAI-32 and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju @ Rajendra Natthuji Fule v. State of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary Home Dep. Mantralaya MUMBAI-32 and Another

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

Audambar Shiv Shrushti Samiti Thr. Member, Sudhakar Yashvantrao Lomate, Yavatmal Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Prof. Mohammad Nazeer S/O Hussain Kothukara and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra,Thr. Its Secretary, Technical Education Dept. Mumbai

Nagesh S/O Sudhakar Bawane Vs the State of Mah.Thr. Police Station Officer, Digras Police Station, District Yavatmal and Another

Sheikh Shahid S/O Sheikh Jibrail and 3 Others Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Hingna Tah.and Dist.Nagpur and Another

Vishal S/O Marotrao Shende Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Awadhutwadi Yavatmal and Another

Laxman S/O Vishwanath Ghongde Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Secretary, Dept of Home , Mantralaya MUMBAI-32 and 2 Others