Bombay High Court
Sunil S/O Vitthalrao Barbatkar vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its ... on 13 June, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, G. A. Sanap
48 wp 123.21.odt jud..odt
1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.123 OF 2021
1. Sunil s/o Vitthalrao Barbatkar,
Age about 48 years, Occupation: Nil
Resident of Sawali (Wagh),
Tahsil: Hinganghat, District: Wardha
Presently detained at Central Prison,
Nagpur-440012 (Convict No.C-9179). PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Its Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400020
2. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison Nagpur- 440012 .... RESPONDENTS
Mr. Gaurav Singh Sengar, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner.
Mrs. N.R. Tripathi, APP for the respondents/State.
________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
G.A. SANAP, JJ.
DATE : 13/06/2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.]
48 wp 123.21.odt jud..odt
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is otherwise eligible
for getting the remission in sentence as per the terms and conditions
of Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017. The only obstacle in
his way to get the benefit of Government Resolution dated
03.06.2017 is adverse opinion recorded by the concerned Sessions
Court.
3. In the opinion of the concerned Sessions Court, the
petitioner is not entitled to receive the remission in his sentence in
terms of the Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017, because as
per year 2011 guidelines, the petitioner is required to undergo
minimum 24 years of imprisonment, and it is also so as per the
guidelines contained in Government Resolution dated 11.04.2008
and the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Criminal Appeal
Nos.490-491 of 2011 decided on 20.11.2012.
4. Insofar as the guidelines of the years 2008 and 2011 are
concerned and also the decision given in the Criminal Appeal
48 wp 123.21.odt jud..odt
Nos.490-491 of 2011 is concerned, there can be no second opinion.
The petitioner would be required to undergo the imprisonment for
the years stated in these guidelines. But, it appears to us that the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, who has signed his opinion as
District Judge-1, has not considered the fact that the remission in
sentence afforded by the Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017
is special kind of remittance and it is over and above the normal
guidelines. This remission in sentence has been given by the State of
Maharashtra as a mark of respect and in order to pay tribute to the
great work done by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and this remission has been
given to celebrate 125 Birth Anniversary of Dr. Babasaheb
Ambedkar, which has been declared as "Samata Varsh" (Equality
Year).
5. The maximum period of remission is of three months and
minimum period is of seven days as per the Government Resolution
dated 03.06.2017. Such remission in sentence being of special
nature, it would have to be given its due effect in law, considering
the same to be in addition to the other remissions in sentence
available to a prisoner like the petitioner.
48 wp 123.21.odt jud..odt
6. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Additional
Sessions Judge has erred in law and facts in giving his opinion and
this is a fit case for issuing appropriate directions for giving benefit
of special remission in sentence to the petitioner.
7. The petition is allowed and it is directed that the
petitioner shall be granted benefit of Government Resolution dated
03.06.2017, in accordance with law, at the earliest.
8. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
9. The legal remuneration of Rs.7,000/- be paid to learned
counsel (appointed) for the petitioner.
JUDGE JUDGE
manisha
Signed By:MANISHA ALOK
SHEWALE
Signing Date:13.06.2022 17:42
