Bombay High Court
Maroti Domaji Shendmake vs D.I.G. (Prisons) (East) Nagpur ... on 17 July, 2017
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
1 wp385.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 385 OF 2017
Maroti Domaji Shendmake,
Convict No.8330, Central
Prison, Nagpur. ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. D.I.G. (Prisons)(Easxt),
Nagpur.
2. Jail Superintendent,
Nagpur Central Jail, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
....
Shri Mir Nagman Ali, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri M.K. Pathan, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents
....
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND
M.G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATED : 17TH JULY, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per M.G. Giratkar, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the
consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the
order dated 15.03.2017 passed by the learned District Judge-13 and Assistant
Sessions Judge, Nagpur.
3. The petitioner is punished for late surrender of 70 days. As per
the ratio 1:5 (70 x 5 = 350 days), by impugned order dated 15th March, 2017, it
2 wp385.17
is submitted that on 05.09.2012, the petitioner was released on parolee for
ten days. The petitioner applied for extension of parole by application dated
13.09.2012. His parole was extended by ten days. The petitioner was not
having knowledge of extension of parole by ten days as it was never
communicated to him. The petitioner was under impression that his parole
leave has been extended by 30 days. Therefore, the petitioner preferred
another application for extension of parole on 11.10.2012. The petitioner did
not surrender on due date because his wife was ill. The petitioner
surrendered after 70 days i.e. on 05.12.2012. The respondent/authorities
punished him in the ratio of 1:5 i.e. 70x5=350 days. It is submitted that the
impugned order passed by the respondent/authorities is illegal and liable to
be quashed and set aside. The respondents supported the impugned order
by filing reply.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel and the learned APP
appearing on behalf of the respective parties. Shri Ali, the learned Counsel
for the petitioner has pointed out the decision of this Court in the case of
Tara Sudhakar Chauhan .v. DIG (Prisons)(East), Nagpur and another in
Criminal Writ Petition No. 109 of 2016 dated 28 th March, 2016
.
5. From the perusal of the aforesaid judgment of this Court, it is
clear that the respondent/authorities wrongly passed the order of
punishment to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is similar to the case
of Tara Chauhan. This Court quashed and set aside the order of respondent/
authorities and also the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur.
3 wp385.17
6. From the perusal of the documents submitted by the petitioner, it
is clear that the wife of the petitioner was ill. The petition shows that the
petitioner applied for parole leave. The respondents had not informed the
petitioner about the extension/rejection of his application. Therefore, in
view of the cited judgment in the case of Tara Sudhakar Chauhan .v. DIG
(Prisons)(East), Nagpur and another in Criminal Writ Petition No. 109 of 2016
dated 28
th
March, 2016 , the impugned order passed by the
respondent/authorities is liable to be quashed and set aside.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The orders proposing
the punishment in the ratio of 1:5 i.e. 70x5=350 days to the petitioner by the
respondents which is upheld by the learned District Judge dated 15.03.2017
are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer
clause (b) with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
*rrg.
