Narayan Vitthal Kewate (In Jail) vs The Inspector General Of Prisons, ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7592 Bom

                                                                             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

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

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

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.

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