Adhik Shivaji Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 8863 Bom

                                                                             17. wp 4077.17.doc

Urmila Ingale

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4077 OF 2017

                 Adhik Shivaji Pawar                            .. Petitioner
                      Vs.
                 The State of Maharashtra                         .. Respondent

                 Mr.Prosper D'Souza, for the Petitioner. 
                 Mrs.G.P. Mulekar, APP  for State.


                                               CORAM : SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI &
                                                              M.S.KARNIK, JJ.

20th NOVEMBER, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT.

V .K.TAHILRAMANI, J.) :

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner is a convict undergoing life

imprisonment in open prison at Yerawada Open Prison, Pune.

The petitioner had admittedly, as of 31/10/2007, undergone

actual imprisonment of 14 years 2 months and 29 days and with

remission, the petitioner has undergone 21 years 5 months and

20 days. The jail record of the petitioner which show the above

fact are taken on record and marked 'X' for identification.

17. wp 4077.17.doc

3. The petitioner is seeking the benefit of the circular

dated 03/06/2017. This circular states that on account of 125 th

birth anniversary of Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar, the State is

granting remission to the prisoners under section 432 (1) of

CrPC. The said circular provides that those who are undergoing

life imprisonment would get 3 months of State remission.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that as the

petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment, he would be eligible

for 3 months State remission. However, the petitioner has been

denied the same.

5. In reply, learned APP stated that the very same

circular states that the said remission would be granted after

taking opinion from the Court. She submitted that they had

sought the opinion from the Sessions Court, Sangli and by letter

dated 13/07/2017, they were informed by the Session Court

that in its opinion, it was not just, proper and desirable case to

give benefit to the convict i.e. the petitioner.

17. wp 4077.17.doc

6. We have perused the said communication dated

13/07/2017. It does not state any reason for refusing remission

to the petitioner. It only states that looking to the case in which

the petitioner is convicted, he should not be given the benefit of

3 months State remission.

7. As per circular dated 03/06/2017 prisoners falling in

6 categories mentioned therein would not get the benefit of the

said circular. We have gone through the order of the Sessions

Court and we find that the case of the petitioner does not fall in

any of the categories which are stated in the circular dated

03/06/2017. The petitioner admittedly does not fall under any

of the six categories mentioned in the circular. In this view of

the matter, we are of the opinion that State remission of 3

months as envisaged by circular dated 03/06/2017 ought to be

granted to the petitioner, accordingly Rule is made absolute.

(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.)