Gujarat High Court
Dipakbhai Ratilal Jaiswal vs State Of Gujarat & on 9 September, 2015
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla
Bench: Rajesh H.Shukla
R/CR.MA/7323/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 7323 of 2015
(FOR DIRECTION)
In
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1910 of 2008
========================================================
DIPAKBHAI RATILAL JAISWAL....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
========================================================
Appearance:
A S TIMBALIA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR H. L. JANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date : 09/09/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. Present application is filed by the applicant for the prayer regarding quashing and setting aside the communication dated 24.03.2015 by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Vadodara, by which, though he has been released upon serving the sentence after remission, he was ordered to be surrendered. It appears that the applicant who was convicted for the offence under Section 307, 326, 201 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo sentence of 10 years has been released, as stated in the jail remarks dated 13.04.2015 that he has been released with effect from 04.10.2013 and the set off and the sentence which he has served are calculated.
2. However, learned Advocate for the applicant has stated that he has been served with the aforesaid notice dated 24.03.2015 that Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Wed Sep 16 00:07:12 IST 2015 R/CR.MA/7323/2015 ORDER there was mistake in the calculation with regard to State remission and was ordered to be surrendered pursuant to which, he has surrendered in Central Jail, Baroda.
3. Therefore, the notice was issued and learned APP was called upon to assist the Court since the appeal has also been restored.
4. The learned Advocate for the applicant has referred to the Government Notification dated 27.09.2013 particularly ClauseB and has also referred to the remission system produced on record with the calculation to emphasize that the State remission of 598 days has not been calculated, which is a mistake.
5. Learned APP Shri Jani, on instructions, has referred to the Government Notification dated 27.09.2013 produced at Annexure RI and pointedly referred to ClauseB which referred to the set off and the State remission (except days of parole and absconding from the parole).
6. Therefore, considering this remission and the remission system placed on record which provide for 42 days for every six months, which is calculated in detail in the sheet produced at AnnexureR VI, the applicant is entitled for the remission which was rightly calculated and the applicant was released and is now sought to be recalled for serving the sentence by the impugned notice. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Vadodara dated 24.03.2015 at AnnexureA cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside in light of the Government Notification dated 27.09.2013 read with remission system.
7. Therefore, present application deserves to be allowed and Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Wed Sep 16 00:07:12 IST 2015 R/CR.MA/7323/2015 ORDER accordingly stands allowed. The impugned notice issued by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Vadodara dated 24.03.2015 at AnnexureA is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.) Tuvar Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Wed Sep 16 00:07:12 IST 2015