Bombay High Court
Shri. Virendra Shivpujan Shukla (In ... vs Dy. Inspector General Of Prisons, East ... on 1 April, 2019
Author: Sunil B. Shukre
Bench: Sunil B. Shukre, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
J-cwp644.18.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.644 OF 2018
Shri Virendra Shivpujan Shukla,
Convict No. C-8939, Aged 48 years,
Lodged in Nagpur Central Prison. : PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. Deputy Inspector General Of
Prisons, East Nagpur Division,
Wardha Road, Nagpur.
2. Superintendent of Central Prison,
Nagpur. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri S.M. Agrawal h/f. Shri Rohan Chhabra, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri A.V. Palshikar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Respondents.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
SMT. PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATE : 1st APRIL, 2019.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.
3. In this case there is a overstay out of Prison on the part of the petitioner after expiry of his parole leave granted to him on 10 th ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2019 22:59:08 ::: J-cwp644.18.odt 2/4 November, 2015. This period of overstay is of 27 days and for such overstay which was found to be without any justification by the Prison Authority, punishment of reduction of 81 days from the remission period that was to be made available to the petitioner has been done. The formula adopted for calculating this period of deduction is 3 days for every single day and as the total number of overstay days were 27, the final calculation disclosed the figure of 81 days which are to be reduced from the remission benefit to be given to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relied upon some of the orders of the Court passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.74/2016 filed by the petitioner himself. This petition had challenged the order dated 12.3.2016 passed by the Prison Authority rejecting the application of the petitioner to grant extension of parole leave. That application was of the date of 3.1.2016. According to the petitioner, he was required to overstay after the expiry of his parole because of the illness of his wife and son. Considering these submissions, this Court, on 21st January, 2016 directed that as the petitioner was reporting at Police Station everyday, no coercive steps be taken against him till the date. Then, on 15th February, 2016, this Court allowed the petitioner to report back to the Prison only to show his bonafides and accordingly the petitioner also surrendered himself before the Jail Authority. But, by that time overstay had increased to 27 days.
::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2019 22:59:08 ::: J-cwp644.18.odt 3/4
5. In the order dated 15th February, 2016 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.74/2016, one significant fact was noted. It was on the basis of the statement made by the learned A.P.P. The statement was to the effect that the Prison Authority would require time of 2 days for ascertaining the health condition of the petitioner's wife and son.
6. When the matter was listed on the next date, which was of the date of 18th February, 2016, the verification report submitted by the Senior Police Inspector, Police Station Gittikhadan, Nagpur dated 15.2.2016 was taken on record and marked Exh.-X for identification. Perusing the report, this Court specifically noted that son and wife of the applicant did not attend the hospital (OASIS Hospital) for at least last 4 weeks which preceding the date of the order i.e. 18 th February, 2016. This Court in this order also noted that even on date on which the notice was issued i.e. 21.1.2016, wife and son of the petitioner were not taking any treatment from the said hospital and thus this Court observed that in such facts and circumstances, this Court would not be inclined to interfere by resorting to its extraordinary jurisdiction. Of course, this Court also states that this was not observed anything on merit on the controversy.
7. It would be clear from the order passed on 18 th February, 2016 that although this Court did not observe anything in express terms on merits of the controversy i.e. the justification offered by the petitioner ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2019 22:59:08 ::: J-cwp644.18.odt 4/4 for not reporting back to the Prison on the date on which this parole leave expired and for his overstaying out of Prison for 27 days, the conclusions made in the order dated 18th February, 2016 are very clear. They indicate in no uncertain terms that the justification given by the petitioner for his overstaying the Prison for 27 days was not correct. Accordingly, the order passed on 18 th February, 2016 has, in our opinion, settled the controversy as regards the explanation given by the petitioner for his overstaying Prison for 27 days.
8. In these circumstances, if the Prison Authority as well as learned District Judge in exercise of his appeal powers has not referred to anything about the explanation given by the petitioner for his overstay, would be insignificant for the reason that a Court superior to both these authorities has already concluded the issue. It would then follow that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner vide impugned order cannot be seen to be illegal or arbitrary. There is no merit in the petition.
9. The petition stands dismissed.
10. Rule is discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
okMksns
::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2019 22:59:08 :::