Supreme Court - Daily Orders
State Of Maharashtra vs Chottu Ratanlal Punekar on 9 March, 2016
Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, C. Nagappan
SLP(Crl.)No.1798/09 1
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).1798/2009
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20/06/2008
in CRLWP No.163/2008 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur)
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
CHOTTU RATANLAL PUNEKAR Respondent(s)
(With appln.(s) for impleadment and stay and office report)
Date : 09/03/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr.Colin Gonsalves, Sr.Adv.
Mr.Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, Adv.
Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Adv.
Ms.Daina Cherian, Adv.
Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav, Adv.
Ms.Anzu K.Varkey, Adv.
Mr.P.M.Saini, Adv.
Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The translated copy of the Remission Policy dated 06.08.1997, placed on the record of the special leave petition, which was filed as far back as in 2009, cannot be accepted as a correct translated version of the original. Lots of sentences, contained therein, make no sense. It is therefore, that the learned Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2016.03.09 17:29:51 TLT counsel for the State of Maharashtra was required to file another Reason:
translated copy of the Remission Policy dated 06.08.1997. The same SLP(Crl.)No.1798/09 2 has been filed vide Crl.M.P.No.4405 of 2016. We find that the same is no better than the original. Illustratively, paragraph 4 thereof is extracted hereunder:
“4. The Government further orders that, the day on which the said remission will be implemented i.e. on 15.4.1991, remission shall not be granted to those prisoners who are languishing outside the prison are unauthorisedly. But those prisoners who are authorisedly credited for State Remission.” It seems that the State of Maharashtra has no interest in the case nor does it have any respect for this Court. After the matter had remained pending in this Court for more than 6 years, a proper translated version of the Remission Policy, on which the case of the State rests, has not been placed on record.
In the above view of the matter, we find no justification whatsoever to entertain the instant special leave petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the special leave petition, all pending interlocutory applications also stand dismissed.
The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Secretary, Department of Home, State of Maharashtra, to bring to his notice how State cases are being handled in the Supreme Court.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (RENUKA SADANA)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER