Bombay High Court
Rajendra S/O Dinasingh Rathod vs The State Of Mah, Thr Supdt Of Central ... on 3 May, 2019
Author: Z.A.Haq
Bench: Z.A.Haq, Vinay Joshi
Judgment 1 924crwp349.19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 349 OF 2019
Rajendra S/o Dinasingh Rathod,
Convict No. 6329, Central Prison,
Nagpur.
.... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Superintendent of Central Prison,
Nagpur.
2. Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
Nagpur.
.... RESPONDENTS.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri A. Y. Sharma, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri M. K. Pathan, APP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ AND VINAY JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : MAY 03, 2019.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Z.A.HAQ, J):
1. Heard.
2. The petitioner, who is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is undergoing sentence, had ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2020 15:30:53 ::: Judgment 2 924crwp349.19.odt applied for parole leave in 2009. The petitioner was released on parole for 30 days on 6th October 2009. The petitioner was required to surrender on 6th November, 2009. However, he failed to surrender on due date and surrendered late by 43 days. Because of late surrender, the Superintendent of Prison, after hearing the petitioner, proposed the punishment in the ratio of 1 x 4 and proposed deduction of 172 days from the remission for which the petitioner was entitled. This proposal was forwarded to Deputy Inspector General of Prison for his approval. By communication dated 20 th October 2010, Deputy Inspector General of Prison granted approval to the proposal of the Superintendent of Prison. The proposal was forwarded to the learned Sessions Judge for appraisal on 23 rd November 2010. By communication dated 31st October 2018, the learned Sessions Judge has granted appraisal for the proposed punishment. Being aggrieved by this, the petitioner has filed present writ petition.
3. On the earlier date, a submission was made on behalf of the petitioner that the punishment is imposed on the petitioner without complying with the requirements of Rule 23 of the Maharashtra Prison (Remissions System) Rules 1962, the punishment having been imposed without seeking sanction of Deputy Inspector General of Prison.
In the reply filed by the respondent No. 2, it is pointed out that the proposal for punishment was forwarded by the Superintendent of Prison ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2020 15:30:53 ::: Judgment 3 924crwp349.19.odt to the Deputy Inspector General of Prison, and the Deputy Inspector General of Prison granted approval to the proposal on 20 th October 2010. In view of this reply, the challenge on this point is given up by the petitioner.
04. Other ground of challenge is that the proposal for appraisal was pending with the Sessions Court for about 08 years and this vitiates the decision to impose unjustified punishment on the petitioner. We are not satisfied with the submission made on behalf of the petitioner on this point, specially, as the petitioner has not been able to point out the prejudice caused to him because of pendency of proposal with the Sessions Court.
05. On merits, it is submitted that the delay on the part of the petitioner in surrendering on due date in 2009 occurred as he had applied for extension of parole and the application was pending with the Authority. There is nothing on record to show as to when the petitioner had applied for extension of parole leave and when that application came to be rejected.
06. At the time of hearing, the learned Advocate for petitioner relied on the judgment given in the case of Navneet Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 88, and the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 964/2015. In both these judgments the prayer made on behalf of the accused for reducing the punishment in the ratio of 1 x 1 came to be ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2020 15:30:53 ::: Judgment 4 924crwp349.19.odt accepted.
After going through the above referred judgments and considering the facts of those cases, we find that in the present case the petitioner has not been able to point that the imposition of punishment in the ratio 1 x 4 is not in accordance with the Rules. Hence, there is no reason to interfere in the matter.
The Criminal Writ Petition is dismissed.
(Judge) (Judge)
Gohane.
::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2020 15:30:53 :::