Bombay High Court
Dhanraj Udaram Katwale (In Jail) vs The D.I.G. Prisons (E) (R), Nagpur ... on 30 March, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 wp153.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.153 OF 2015
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.978 OF 2015
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1001 OF 2015
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.52 OF 2016
ig WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.65 OF 2016
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.66 OF 2016
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.121 OF 2016
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.153 OF 2016
1) CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.153 OF 2015 :
Mahendra Digambarrao Deshmukh,
Convict No.C-310,
Open Prison, Morshi,
District Amravati. ........ PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) The D.I.G. Prison (E) ( R),
Nagpur.
2) The Superintendent,
Open Prison, Morshi,
Distt. Amravati. ........ RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 02/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 11:02:20 :::
2 wp153.15.odt
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ms S.H.Bhatia, Adv. (appointed) for the petitioner.
Mrs.N.R.Tripathi, A.P.P. for the respondents/State.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
***************
2) CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.978 OF 2015 :
Gupta Dashrath Todase,
Convict No.C-166,
Open Prison, Bhandara,
District Bhandara ........ PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Home Deptt.,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2) The Superintendent,
Open Prison, Bhandara,
Distt. Bhandara. ........ RESPONDENTS
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ms P.T.Joshi, Adv. (appointed) for the petitioner.
Mrs.N.R.Tripathi, A.P.P. for the respondents/State.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
***************
3) CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1001 OF 2015 :
Sudhakar s/o. Namdeo Bhoyar,
Convict No.C-293,
presently lodged in Open
Prison, Morshi,
District Amravati. ........ PETITIONER
::: Uploaded on - 02/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 11:02:20 :::
3 wp153.15.odt
// VERSUS //
The Deputy Inspector General
of Prison, Morshi, Distt.
Amravati. ........ RESPONDENT
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ms S.V.Salwankar, Adv. (appointed) for the petitioner.
Mrs.N.R.Tripathi, A.P.P. for the respondents/State.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
***************
4) CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.52 OF 2016 :
Ramesh Gopinath Mundhe,
Convict No.C-408,
Open Prison, Morshi,
District Amravati. ........ PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) The D.I.G. Prison (E) ( R),
District Nagpur.
2) The Superintendent,
Open Prison, Morshi,
Distt. Amravati. ........ RESPONDENTS
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ms Sneha Dhote Adv. (appointed) for the petitioner.
Mrs.S.S.Jachak, A.P.P. for the respondents/State.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
***************
::: Uploaded on - 02/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 11:02:20 :::
4 wp153.15.odt
5) CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.65 OF 2016 :
Dhanraj Udaram Katwale,
Convict No.C-336,
Open Prison, Morshi,
District Amravati. ........ PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) The D.I.G. Prison (E) ( R),
Nagpur.
2) The Superintendent,
Open Prison, Morshi,
Distt. Amravati. ........ RESPONDENTS
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ms S.B.Saikhede, Adv. (appointed) for the petitioner.
Mr.S.M.Ghodeswar, A.P.P. for the respondents/State.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
***************
6) CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.66 OF 2016 :
Jivan Tulshiram Dhawali,
Convict No.C-291,
Open Prison, Morshi,
District Amravati. ........ PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) The D.I.G. Prison (E) ( R),
District Nagpur.
2) The Superintendent,
Open Prison, Morshi,
Distt. Amravati. ........ RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 02/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 11:02:20 :::
5 wp153.15.odt
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ms P.T.Joshi, Adv. (appointed) for the petitioner.
Mr.S.M.Ghodeswar, A.P.P. for the respondents/State.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
***************
7) CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.121 OF 2016 :
Kishor Krushnarao Bhadke,
Convict No.C-51,
Open Prison, Nagpur,
District Nagpur. ig ........ PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) The D.I.G. Prison (E) ( R),
District Nagpur.
2) The Superintendent,
Open Prison, Nagpur,
Distt. Nagpur. ........ RESPONDENTS
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ms Archana Ramteke, Adv. (appointed) for the petitioner.
Ms R.V.Kaliya, A.P.P. for the respondents/State.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
***************
8) CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.153 OF 2016 :
Rajkumar Maroti Patil,
Convict No.C-286,
Open Prison, Morshi,
District Amravati. ........ PETITIONER
::: Uploaded on - 02/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 11:02:20 :::
6 wp153.15.odt
// VERSUS //
1) The D.I.G. Prison (E) ( R),
District Nagpur.
2) The Superintendent,
Open Prison, Morshi,
Distt. Amravati. ........ RESPONDENTS
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ms S.M.Bhatia, Adv. (appointed) for the petitioner.
Mr.M.J.Khan, A.P.P. for the respondents/State.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
ig CORAM : B. R. GAVAI &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 30.3.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B. R. Gavai, J) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.
2. The petitioners have approached this Court praying for
treating the extended period of furlough of 14 days each prior to
2012 as a period which shall be construed to be the period spent in
prison for the purposes of remission and for grant of consequential
benefits. It is the contention of the petitioners that, if the extended
period of furlough of 14 days each prior to amendment to Rule 16 of
7 wp153.15.odt
the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, which came
into effect from 23.4.2012, is counted as remission of sentence, the
petitioners would be entitled to be released after undergoing the
respective sentence.
3. It is the contention of the petitioners that since the said
provision is beneficial to the prisoners, same will have to be extended
even for the period prior to amendment coming into effect.
4. Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of the State
Government that the amendment is not retrospective in nature and it
will apply only from the date on which it is given effect.
6. However, the said issue is no more res integra. The two
Division Benches of this Court in the cases of Jagannath Raghunath
Shelke .vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2014(2)
BCR (Cri) 468 and Satyanarayan Jagdishprasad Agrawal .vs. State
of Maharashtra and another, dt.28.11.2014 (Criminal Writ Petition
No.739 of 2014) have taken a view that since the said provision is
beneficial in nature, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of State of Harayana and Others vs. Jagdish
8 wp153.15.odt
reported in (2010) 4 SCC 216, the benefit of same will also be
required to be given to the prisoners if consideration of their case falls
beyond the period on which amendment came into effect.
7. Undisputedly, the case of all the petitioners are required to
be considered for grant of benefit of remission after the said
amendment came into effect on 23.4.2012 and as such, the
petitioners would also be entitled to the benefit of said amended
rules.
8. In that view of the matter, the respondents are directed to
give benefit of the amended provisions of Rule 16 as amended on
23.4.2012 and if, after grant of benefit of the same, the petitioners
are entitled to be released, they be released in accordance with law.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as
to costs.
Fees of the appointed Counsel in each of these matters is
quantified at Rs.1,500/- each.
JUDGE JUDGE
jaiswal
9 wp153.15.odt
