Bombay High Court

Milind @ Manoj @ Sharukh Khan ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 12 October, 2017

Bench: S.S. Shinde

                                                                 cwp1106.17
                                        1


                                        
      IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1106 OF 2017


 Milind @ Manoj @ Sharukh Khan
 Mahadu Thorat,  (C-7188),
 Central Prison, Aurangabad.
                                 ...PETITIONER 

        VERSUS             

 1) The State of Maharashtra,
    Through Secretary,
    Home Department,
    Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

 2) The State of Maharashtra,
    Through Superintendent,
    Central Prison, Aurangabad.   
                                 ...RESPONDENTS

                      ...
    Mr. Rupesh A. Jaiswal Advocate for Petitioner.
    Ms. P.V. Diggikar, A.P.P. for Respondent 
    Nos. 1 & 2.       
                      ...


               CORAM:   S.S. SHINDE AND
                        MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 9TH OCTOBER, 2017

DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 12TH OCTOBER, 2017

cwp1106.17

JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and

heard finally with the consent of the learned

counsel appearing for the parties.

2. By way of filing this Writ Petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the

Petitioner seeks directions to Respondent Nos.1

and 2 to grant the State remission of 14

(Fourteen) months to the Petitioner on the eve of

Golden Jubilee Independence day, in view of the

Government Circular dated 6th August, 1997.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that he

is undergoing sentence for imprisonment of seven

years as per order dated 30th November, 1998,

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani

in Sessions Case No.84 of 1995. The Petitioner has

contended that on 20th October, 1994, he was

cwp1106.17

arrested in connection with a crime for the

offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian

Penal Code. He was released on bail by the

Sessions Judge, Parbhani on 9th November, 1994.

After full-fledged trial, the Sessions Court at

Parbhani, by order dated 30th November, 1998, has

held the Petitioner guilty for the offence

punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal

Code and he has been sentenced to suffer

imprisonment for seven years. It is submitted that

the Petitioner has filed an appeal before this

Court being aggrieved by the Judgment and order

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani

and thereafter he was released on bail on 26th

January, 1999 and his sentence was suspended. It

is submitted that unfortunately the appeal filed

by the Petitioner was dismissed by this Court by

Judgment and order dated 5th April, 2011 and he

was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment

for seven years. Thus, since 5th April, 2011 the

Petitioner is in jail.

cwp1106.17

4. It is submitted that in exercise of

powers under Section 432 (1) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the Government of Maharashtra,

Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai issued one

Circular dated 6th August, 1997, granting the State

remission to the prisoners on the occasion of

Golden Jubilee Independence day. The said

remission is to take effect from 15 th August, 1997.

In para 2 of the said Government Circular, there

are some exceptions wherein the benefit of

remission should not be given. Para 4 of the said

Circular states that on 15th August, 1997, the

prisoners, who were unauthorizedly, out of prison

should not be given the benefit of the said

Circular but the prisoners who were out of prison

authorizedly, such as on parole and furlough

etc., they be given the benefit of the State

remission.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the

cwp1106.17

Petitioner submits that, in the case of Rajubhau

Gaddalwar vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal

Writ Petition No.244 of 2008 and also in the case

of Chotu Punekar vs. State of Maharashtra, in

Criminal Writ Petition No.163 of 2008 the High

Court has held that even the prisoner, who is not

convict, who is under-trial on relevant date i.e.

6th August, 1997, would be entitled to State

Remission on the eve of Golden Jubilee of India's

Independence, and hence the Petitioner is also

entitled for State Remission of fourteen months on

eve of Golden Jubilee of India's Independence.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the

Petitioner has further relied upon the Government

Circular dated 28th April, 1999 wherein it is

stated that every convict who is on bail at the

time of grant of State Remission, would be

entitled for such State Remission. Learned counsel

submits that at the time of grant of State

Remission, the Petitioner was on bail which was

cwp1106.17

granted by the Sessions Court, Parbhani and

therefore, as per the provisions of Government

Circular dated 28th April, 1999, the Petitioner is

entitled for State Remission of fourteen months.

Therefore, he submits that the Petition may be

allowed.

7. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State

submits that the Petitioner is convicted by

Additional Sessions Court, Parbhani by order dated

30th November, 1998, for the offence punishable

under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and he

is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven

years. It is submitted that as per the Government

Circular/letter dated 6th August, 1997, the

Government has directed to give State remission

only to convicted prisoners and the effect of the

same is to be given from 15th August, 1997. As per

the Government letter dated 6th August, 1997, all

prisoners, who were convict for imprisonment of

seven years as on or before 15 th August, 1997,

cwp1106.17

should be given remission of fourteen months. When

the State Government letter dated 6th August, 1997

was issued, at that time the petitioner was not

convict prisoner and since 9th November, 1994,

1990, he was enlarged on bail. Learned A.P.P.,

relying upon the exposition of law by the Supreme

Court in the case of State of Haryana and others

vs. Jagdish1 and in particular Para 43 thereof,

submits that the Supreme Court has made it clear

that the convict is entitled for the provisions in

the policy that was existing on the date of his

conviction. She submits that the policy to grant

remission on account of Golden Jubilee of Indian

Independence would necessarily apply from the date

of coming into force the said policy.

8. We have heard learned counsel appearing

for the Petitioner, and the learned APP appearing

for the Respondent - State at length. With their

able assistance, we have perused the pleadings in

1 2010(4) S.C.C. 216

cwp1106.17

the Petition, annexures thereto, and also the

Judgments cited across the Bar by the learned

counsel appearing for the Petitioners, and the

learned APP appearing for the Respondent - State.

In the present case, it is not in dispute that on

6th August, 1997, the State of Maharashtra issued a

Notification, thereby making provision to grant

State remission to the prisoners on the occasion

of 'Golden Jubilee of Indian Independence'.

However, according to the learned APP appearing

for the Respondent - State, the benefit is

extended only to the convicted prisoners and

effect of the same is to be given from 15th August,

1997, and on 6th August, 1997, the Petitioner was

not convicted. It is true that on 6 th August, 1997,

the Petitioner was not convicted, however, it is

admitted position that the Petitioner was under-

trial prisoner and he was released on bail after

his arrest. It is also true that on 15th August,

1997, the petitioner was on bail, however, he was

under-trial prisoner.

cwp1106.17

9. The Division Bench of the Bombay High

Court, Bench at Nagpur, in the case of Chottu

Ratanlal Punekar Vs. State of Maharashtra2 had

occasion to consider the communication dated 6th

August, 1997, issued by the Desk Officer, Home

Department, Government of Maharashtra, informing

the Inspector General of Prisons, Pune under the

orders of the Governor of Maharashtra that, State

remission is to be given to the convicts on the

eve of Golden Jubilee of Indian Independence with

effect from 15th August, 1997. The Division Bench

recorded the grievance of the Petitioner in para 4

and after assigning the reasons in para 5 and 6,

allowed the said Petition. Para 4 to 6 of the said

Judgment, reads thus:

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that benefit of the said State remission is not extended to him though he is entitled for it. It was urged on behalf of the respondent / State that State remission can be extended only to those

2 2009 [1] Mh.L.J. [Cri.] 209

cwp1106.17

persons who were convicts on 15-8-1997 and it cannot be extended to those who were not convicts on that date. Since the petitioner was not a convict on 15-8-1997 and was merely an undertrial, he is not entitled to get benefit of the State remission. The logic, according to the learned APP is that had the petitioner been acquitted, there was no question of giving him benefit of the State remission.

5. The logic in the submissions of learned APP is difficult to accept. The fortuitous circumstance of one Court deciding a comparatively new matter before 15-8-1997 and the another Court deciding a very old matter thereafter cannot be permitted to be utilized to distinguish between convicts / prisoners for the purposes of extension of said benefit. Section 432 of Criminal Procedure Code empowers the State Government to pass appropriate orders and to remit sentences. In view of Golden Jubilee of Indian Independence, the decision dated 6-8-1997 has been taken. The decision is made operative from 15-8-1997. Thus the above referred fortuitous circumstance is totally relevant and if any classification is permitted on the basis of such

cwp1106.17

circumstance, it would be wholly arbitrary. For an undertrial prisoner languishing in jail, after he is found guilty and is sentenced, section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code permits set off of the period spent by him as undertrial prisoner against the period of sentence ultimately imposed. Thus for all practical purposes after he is found guilty and sentence, he becomes convict and as such is covered by the policy decision dated 6-8-1997 mentioned above. The effort to contend that the period spent in jail as undertrial prisoner is wholly irrelevant for the purposes of the said circular, is without any basis and in fact it violates the spirit of said decision. An undertrial prisoner who is ultimately acquitted is not a convict at all and hence he is not entitled to benefit of remission.

6. We, therefore, hold that the present petitioner is entitled to benefit of the said State remission and accordingly direct respondent / State Government to extend its benefit to him. Rule is made absolute in the above terms."

10. Therefore, the grievance/ controversy

cwp1106.17

raised in the present Petition is the same like

raised by the Petitioner therein in the case of

Chottu Ratanlal Punekar [cited supra]. The State

Government, being aggrieved by the Judgment of the

Division Bench in the case of Chottu Ratanlal

Punekar, filed Petition for Special Leave to

Appeal [Cri.] No.1798/2009 [State of Maharashtra

Vs. Chottu Ratanlal Punekar]. The said Petition

was heard by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 9th

March, 2016, and for the reason stated in the

order, the said Petition was dismissed.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the

Petitioner also relied upon Government Circular

dated 28th April, 1999, wherein it is stated that:

"mijksDr izdj.kkP;k vuq"kaxkus 'kklukus vkrk vlk

fu.kZ; ?ksryk vkgs dh] 'kklukus ;kiwohZ izLrqr dsysY;k

loZ jkT;ekQhpk Qk;nk lacaf/kr vkns'k T;k dkyko/khe/;s

dk<.;kr vkys R;k dkyko/khe/;s ts dSnh U;k;ky;kus

eatwj dsysY;k tkehu (Bail) jtsoj vlrhy v'kk loZ

cwp1106.17

dSn;kauk R;k R;k dkyko/khrhy jkT;ekQhpk Qk;nk ns.;kr

;kok-"

. Thus it is provided in the said

Government Circular that benefit of all State

Remissions should be given to the convicts who

were enlarged on bail by the competent Court on

the relevant date.

12. In the light of the discussion in the

foregoing paragraphs, though we are not inclined

to issue any mandatory directions to the

Respondents to accept the prayer of the

Petitioner, however, we are inclined to give

directions to the Respondents to consider the case

of the Petitioner afresh, in the light of the

Judgment of the Division Bench in the case of

Chottu Ratanlal Punekar [cited supra] and also the

observations made herein above, and the office

record in relation to the case of the Petitioner

maintained by the Respondents, and to take