Sanjay Shankarrao Hole vs State Of Mah., Thr. Its Secretary, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1474 Bom

                                                                                        1
                                                                             wp81.2020.odt

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                        NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.


                      CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.81/2020

 Sanjay Shankarrao Hole,
 Convict No.B-4841, detained in
 Central Prison, Amravati.                                                    ..Petitioner.

          ..Vs..

 1.       State of Maharashtra,
          through it's Secretary,
          Home Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

 2.       The Superintendent of Central
          Prison, Amravati.                                                   ..Respondents.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri A.S. Siddiqui, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner.
 Ms N.R. Tripathi, A.P.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           CORAM :- SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                            AVINASH G. GHAROTE , JJ.

DATED :- 21.1.2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent.

2. The petitioner has been denied benefit of one time remission

decided to be given to all the prisoners undergoing sentence as of

14.4.2016 in order to celebrate 125th birth anniversary of Dr.

Babasaheb Ambedkar, on the ground that the petitioner has been

wp81.2020.odt

convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for an offence of

cruelty punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

However, on going through the Government Resolution dated

3.6.2017 granting such one time benefit, it is clearly seen that there is

no disqualification declared for the convicts under Section 498-A of

the Indian Penal Code to avail of the benefit. Therefore, such denial

by the prison authority is not consistent with the spirit of Government

Resolution dated 3.6.2017.

3. In the reply, in paragraph 2, date of conviction of the

petitioner has been stated to be 29.11.2018 and initially this date had

influenced us to deny the benefit of the Government Resolution dated

17.6.2017 to the petitioner as the benefit is available only to the

prisoners suffering imprisonment as of 14.4.2016. But we must

appreciate the assistance given by the learned appointed counsel in

timely pointing out to us that the date of the conviction mentioned in

the reply of the state is wrong and the petitioner has been actually

convicted on 18.2.2004, which is evident from the letter dated

8.3.2019 written by the Ad-hoc District Judge-1 and Additional

Sessions Judge, Amravati to the Jail Superintendent, Amravati. So,

there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner is eligible for

availing of the benefit of Government Resolution dated 3.6.2017. In

wp81.2020.odt

the result, the impugned action of the respondent is hereby quashed

and set aside. The petitioner is directed to be granted benefit of

Government Resolution dated 3.6.2017 according to the category and

the period for which he would be entitled in terms of this Government

Resolution dated 17.6.2017. Rule made absolute accordingly. The

learned appointed counsel be paid legal remuneration of ₹3,000/-3,000/-

(₹3,000/- Three Thousand Only).

                               JUDGE                                  JUDGE




 Tambaskar.