Bombay High Court
Raju @ Mukesh Poonamchand Dongare @ ... vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Secretary, Home ... on 16 January, 2024
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: Vinay Joshi
2024:BHC-NAG:702-DB
923-WP 781-23.odt
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 781 OF 2023
Raju @ Mukesh Poonamchand Dongare Petitioner
@ Patel, Aged 45 years, Occupation
Convict No.C-4864, R/o Central Prison,
Amravati.
-Versus-
1. The State of Maharashtra, through
Secretary, Home Department (Prison)
Mantralaya Mumbai 32.
2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Respondents
Amravati, Camp Road, Amravati 444602.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.A.B.Deshpande, (appointed) counsel for the petitioner.
Ms.N.R.Tripathi, AGP for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE :16th January, 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Vinay Joshi, J.)
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is
heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for
the parties.
3. The petitioner has been convicted in Sessions Case No. 84
of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 302,307,353
Kavita.
923-WP 781-23.odt
201 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/25 of Arms Act.
4. The petitioner is in jail and suffering sentence from the
year 2012. The petitioner has applied for grant of remission in
terms of Government Circular dated 03.06.2017, however due to
adverse opinion of the Sessions Judge, he did not get the benefit.
While, challenging the adverse order, the petitioner would submit
that the learned Sessions Judge, has merely assigned the reason that
the petitioner has been convicted under Arms Act. It is argued that
while convicting the accused, trial Court has imposed a sentence of
rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Arms Act
and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. According
to the petitioner, the punishment imposed under Arms Act has
already undergone and thus, the petitioner's case does not fall in
exceptional category No.3 of the Government Circular.
5. On facts, there is no dispute that for the reason of
imposition of punishment under Central Act, the benefit of above
Government circular was denied. It is evident that while convicting
the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 3/25 of the
Arms Act, the trial Court has directed that all substantive sentences
Kavita.
923-WP 781-23.odt
shall run concurrently. Admittedly, the petitioner is in jail for last
12 years. Since the petitioner has already undergone the term of
imprisonment provided for commission of the offence under Arms
Act, for said reason, the petitioner cannot be deprived from getting
benefit of the Government Resolution.
6. In view of the above, the application is allowed. We,
hereby direct the respondent/authority to pass appropriate order of
grant of remission to the petitioner in terms of Government
Resolution dated 03.06.2017 by imposing suitable conditions as he
deems fit.
7. Necessary orders shall be passed within four weeks from
the date of the receipt of this order.
8. The fees of learned counsel for the petitioner (appointed)
be quantified and paid, as per rules.
9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
(VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J) (VINAY JOSHI, J)
Signed by: Kavita P Tayade
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 18/01/2024 17:16:24 Kavita.
