Bombay High Court
Raju S/O. Rambhau Likhar (In Jail) vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Deputy ... on 26 June, 2018
Author: P. N. Deshmukh
Bench: P. N. Deshmukh, M. G. Giratkar
1 jg.cri.wp 1009.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1009 of 2017
Raju s/o. Rambhau Likhar,
Convict No. 2318, Aged Major,
Occ. Nil, Confined at Open Prison,
Morshi, District - Amravati. .... Petitioner
// Versus //
(1) State of Maharashtra, through its
Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
Eastern Region, Nagpur.
(2) The Superintendent, Open Prison,
Morshi, District - Amravati. .... Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. S. B. Saikhede, Advocate for the petitioner (appointed)
Ms. H. N. Jaipurkar, APP for the State/respondents
CORAM : P. N. DESHMUKH AND
M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : 26/6/2018
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : P. N. DESHMUKH, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsel for parties, heard finally.
2. This is a petition challenging order dated 15-3-2008 passed by respondent no. 2 awarding jail punishment of 100x 3 days to the petitioner. The petitioner by this petition has prayed to reduce ::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2018 01:26:45 ::: 2 jg.cri.wp 1009.17.odt the said punishment by 100x 1 days and to continue the petitioner's name on remission record.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that reason put forth by the petitioner of ill health of his wife due to which he has surrendered late by 100 days has not been considered and, therefore, prayed that petition be allowed.
4. It is noted that petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and undergo life imprisonment. By order dated 1-9-2007, petitioner was granted parole leave for 30 days and it was necessary for him to surrender on 25-10-2007. Admittedly, petitioner surrendered late by 100 days for which shows cause notice was issued to him under Bombay Parole and Furlough Leave Rules. The reason put forth by the petitioner has been duly considered by the respondents authorities in view of the guidelines issued under Government Resolution dated 22-5-2009 and had accordingly imposed jail punishment of 100x3 days. It is noted that even prior to the present incident, petitioner was earlier released on parole and furlough leave, when he surrendered himself but not on the due date on which he was required to be surrendered. In the circumstances, punishment imposed by the respondent being as per ::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2018 01:26:45 ::: 3 jg.cri.wp 1009.17.odt Government guidelines does not appear to be illegal. The claim as aforesaid can not be granted. The petition is dismissed.
5. Rule is discharged.
6. Fees of the learned counsel appointed for petitioner are quantified at Rs. 1500/-.
JUDGE JUDGE
wasnik
::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2018 01:26:45 :::