15. cri wp 727-17.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 727 OF 2017
Aba Umrao Shinde .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
...................
Appearances
Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
Mr. H.J. Dedhia APP for the State
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
M.S. KARNIK, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 20, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1. Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner has preferred this petition being aggrieved by the fact that he was permanently removed from the remission register.
3. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner was arrested in the year 2007 for committing an jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2017 00:10:49 :::
15. cri wp 727-17.doc offence under Sections 396 and 342 of IPC. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The petitioner applied for parole leave on 9.11.2011 on the ground of illness of his wife. The said application was granted and the petitioner was released on parole leave for a period of 30 days i.e from 10.4.2012 to 11.5.2012. The petitioner thereafter preferred an application for extension of parole leave for a further period of 30 days. The said application was granted and the parole leave was extended from 11.5.2012 to 9.6.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred application for second extension of parole leave for a further period of 30 days i.e from 10.6.2012 to 9.7.2012. The said application came to be rejected. The petitioner had to surrender on 10.6.2012, however, he did not surrender before the prison authorities. As the petitioner did not report back to the prison in time and he had absconded, FIR came to be lodged against him under Section 224 of IPC at Kalamb Police Station, Usmanabad vide FIR No. 72/13 dated 22.10.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner was traced and jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2017 00:10:49 :::
15. cri wp 727-17.doc arrested by the police on 1.1.2014 and brought back to the prison on 3.1.2014. Thus, the petitioner had overstayed for 570 days.
4. On account of overstay of 570 days, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 21.4.2014. The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that the overstay was on account of illness of his wife. However, no supporting documents i.e medical papers were submitted to the office to substantiate the claim that he had overstayed on account of illness of his wife. After considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the fact that the medical papers were not submitted, the Superintendent of Jail proposed the punishment to remove the petitioner from the remission system as per the guideline issued on 2.8.2011 Thereafter, the proposal was submitted to the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Western Region, Pune vide letter dated 27.2.2012. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Western Region, Pune sanctioned the said proposal jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2017 00:10:49 :::
15. cri wp 727-17.doc on 22.4.2015. Thereafter, the proposal was sent to the Sessions Judge, Pune for approval. The Sessions Court approved the punishment of removing the petitioner from the remission system. Thereafter, the punishment was implemented on 6.2.2016.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the father of the petitioner expired on 5.8.2012 and his widowed sister was residing with the petitioner who had some medical problems for which she had go undergo an operation and it was on account of these facts that the petitioner could not report back to the prison in time. However, again no certificates were produced by the petitioner to substantiate his claim on these two aspects.
6. The notification under the Prisons Act dated 2.8.2011 clearly states that if a prisoner stays outside the jail unauthorizedly for a period of six months or more, his remission will be cut permanently. This is stated in clause 8 jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2017 00:10:49 :::
15. cri wp 727-17.doc of the said notification. The petitioner is clearly covered by clause 8 of the said notification, hence, we cannot find any fault with the authorities for removing the petitioner from the remission system permanently. No case is made out for interference. Rule is discharged.
[ M.S. KARNIK, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 5 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2017 00:10:49 :::