1 WP701.2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 701/2017
1. Narayan Vitthal Kewate (In jail)
C-7508, Central Prison,
Wardha Road,
Nagpur ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Inspector General of Prisons,
East Division, Nagpur Maharashtra State,
Nagpur
2. Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Wardha Road,
Nagpur
3. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary,
Department of Home Mantralaya,
Mumbai ..... Respondents
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri T. Parmar, Adv.(Appointed) for the petitioner
Mrs. N.R. Tripathi, A.P.P for the Respondents
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik &
M.G. Giratkar, JJ.
DATE : 26/09/201 7 Oral Judgment (Per:- Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Writ Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the ::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 01:25:25 ::: 2 WP701.2017 parties.
2. By this criminal writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the D.I.G (Prisons), Nagpur dated 30/05/2017 reducing the remission period of the petitioner by 130 days. The petitioner has also challenged the order confirming the said decision of the D.I.G (Prisons) in judicial appraisal.
3. Shri Parmar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside as the petitioner has not surrendered 26 days after the due date. It is stated that the petitioner was granted furlough leave on 15/01/2013 for 14 days and his application for extension of furlough leave was rejected after the expiry of the period of proposed extension. It is submitted that since the petitioner was suffering from heart ailment, he was required to seek the extension of furlough leave. It is submitted that in the circumstances of the case, the remission period of the petitioner should not be reduced by 130 days as is done by the impugned order and the multiplier of 5 could be applied only to 11 days.
4. Mrs. Tripathi, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned orders. It is submitted that though the extension of the leave was not granted to the petitioner and the said application was rejected, the petitioner surrendered 26 days after the ::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 01:25:25 ::: 3 WP701.2017 expiry of the due date. It is submitted that the multiplier of 5 was rightly applied as this was the 7th occasion when the petitioner had surrendered late. It is stated that in the circumstances of the case, the remission should have been reduced by considering that the petitioner had surrendered 26 days after the due date.
5. The petitioner was granted furlough leave for 14 days on 15/01/2013 and as per the impugned order, he was required to surrender on 30/01/2013. The petitioner had applied for extension of furlough leave but the same was not granted. If the respondents would have granted the extension, the petitioner could have availed the leave till 30/02/2013. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, when the petitioner was suffering from heart ailment, the multiplier of 5 should not have been applied to 26 days and it should have been applied for the delay after 13/02/2013 till 24/02/2013, i.e. the date on which he surrendered. The multiplier of 5 ought to have been applied to 11 days by considering the fact that the petitioner was suffering from heart ailment during the said period and his application for extension was rejected after the period of extension expired.
6. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned orders are modified. The respondents are directed to reduce the remission period of the petitioner only by 55 days instead of 130 days. ::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 01:25:25 :::
4 WP701.2017 Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
The professional fees of the learned counsel for the petitioner are quantified at Rs. 1,500/- (Rs. One thousand five hundred only).
JUDGE JUDGE
Ansari
::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 01:25:25 :::