Remanded

Vinayak Balasaheb Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Feb 2023WP/1065/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the petitioner sought remission of sentence under a 2017 Government Resolution. The court found the Sessions Judge's opinion casual as it ignored the conviction details. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

The petition was remanded to the learned Sessions Judge to reconsider the prayer for remission by considering the conviction judgment and within two weeks.

Vinayak Balasaheb Shinde Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

905-wp-1065-2020.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1065 OF 2020

¶4

Vinayak Balasaheb Shinde… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶5

Mr. Ajinkya Udane, for the Petitioner.

¶6

Mrs. P. P. Shinde, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶7

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.

¶8

 DATE : 24th FEBRUARY, 2023.

¶9

P. C. :

¶10

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶11

2 By this Petition, sent through jail, the petitioner seeks the benefit of the remission of three months declared by the State Government by Resolution dated 3^rd June, 2017, on account of the

¶12

125th Birth Anniversary of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar.

¶13

3 Mr. Udane, appointed Counsel for the petitioner, submits that

¶14

the learned Sessions Judge had rejected the petitioner’s representation only by giving an opinion that the offence was

¶15

REKHA PRAKASH PATIL

¶16

Rekha Patil 1/3

¶17

Digitally signed by REKHA PRAKASH PATIL Date: 2023.02.27 17:41:39 +0530

¶18

905-wp-1065-2020.odt

¶19

serious in nature and that the said opinion is a casual opinion. He
submits that on the basis of the said opinion the petitioner’s prayer
for remission has been rejected.

¶20

4We have perused the opinion given by the learned Sessions
Judge. We find some merit in the submission advanced by the
learned Counsel for the petitioner. The opinion given by the learned
Sessions Judge appears to be casual. He has not considered the
judgment of conviction and whether the case of the petitioner would
be covered under the Government Resolution. Hence, we deem it
appropriate, in the facts to remit back the matter to the learned
Sessions Judge for fresh consideration.

¶21

5 The learned Sessions Judge after receipt of the papers, to forthwith, within two weeks, reconsider the prayer of the petitioner keeping in view the Government Resolution dated 3^rd June, 2017.

¶22

6 After the matter is freshly considered, the same be forwarded to the Superintendent, Yerwada Central Prison, Pune, for taking

¶23

Rekha Patil 2/3

¶24

appropriate decision thereon.

¶25

7 Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶26

8 All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶27

PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.

¶28

 REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶29

Rekha Patil 3/3

Vinayak Balasaheb Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinayak Balasaheb Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Harvinder Singh Jogindersingh Vijan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mayur Prakash Doshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jagjit Singh Vijan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ajinkya Dattatray Sangitrao Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sayed Faiz Ahmed Kadri and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rakesh Balkrishna Gurav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.