Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 11943 Bom
Judgement Date : 30 November, 2023
2023:BHC-NAG:16594-DB
Judgment 910 wp 648.23
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 648/2023
Rajesh s/o Rajam Jadi,
Age about 42 yrs., presently detained
in Open Prison Gadchiroli,
Dist. Gadchiroli - 442 603,
Convict No.C116.
.... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Department
Home, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. Superintendent, Open Prison,
Gadchiroli - 442 603.
3. Superintend, Nashik Road,
Central Prison Office, Nashik.
... RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------
Mr. Anuj Gandhi, Advocate (appointed) for petitioner.
Mrs. N. R. Tripati, APP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
----------------------------------
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
M. W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
DATE : 30.11.2023.
Judgment 910 wp 648.23
2
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :
Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for
parties.
2. The petitioner has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is
undergoing imprisonment for life. The petitioner has applied for
remission of three months on account of 125 th Birth Anniversary of
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar as per Government Resolution ('GR') dated
03.06.2017. The respondent-authority sought opinion of the
Sessions Judge on the point of according benefit as per the said GR.
In response, the learned Sessions Judge vide communication dated
02.11.2017 has expressed that petitioner is not entitled for
premature release. The learned Sessions Judge has denied the
benefit as that the petitioner was convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and he has
undergone sentence of nine years only.
3. On examining of GR dated 03.06.2017, it reveals that a
life convict is entitled for three months remission. However, there is
no rider of serving minimum sentence for making him eligible.
Judgment 910 wp 648.23
Clause Nos. (i) to (vi) of the said GR carves out exception in which
the petitioner does not fall. The learned APP has concurred with our
view that the petitioner does not fall in above exceptional category.
In the result, there is no reason to deny the benefit of GR dated
03.06.2017.
4. In view of above, petition is allowed. We hereby quash
and set aside the impugned action of refusal to accord benefit to the
petitioner as per GR dated 03.06.2017. We hereby direct the
respondents authority to extend the benefit of remission as per GR
dated 03.06.2017. The authority shall pass appropriate order within
four weeks from today.
5. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.
6. Fees to the appointed counsel for the petitioner be paid as
per Rule.
(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Gohane
Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 01/12/2023 17:32:43
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!