Bombay High Court
Sandip S/O. Kisan Khadse vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Its ... on 18 September, 2024
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: Vinay Joshi
2024:BHC-NAG:10539-DB
Judgment wp236.24
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 236 OF 2024.
Sandip s/o Kisan Khadse,
Aged 43 years, Occupation -
Nil, Prisoner No.C-778, resident
of Open Jail Morshi,
District Amravati - 444905. ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1.State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Home Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 400032.
2.State of Maharashtra,
through its Superintendent,
Open Jail Morshi, Amravati. ... RESPONDENTS.
---------------------------------
Mrs. Rekha Godbole, Advocate [Appointed] for the Petitioner.
Ms N. Tripathi, A.P.P. for Respondents.
----------------------------------
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 18, 2024.
Rgd.
Judgment wp236.24
2
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :
Heard.
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent of
the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final
disposal.
2. The petitioner has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is
presently serving life imprisonment from 31.01.2023 onwards. The
petitioner has applied for special remission on account of 125 th birth
anniversary of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, in terms of Government
Resolution dated 03.06.2017.
3. On receipt of petitioner's urge, the jail authorities have
obtained appraisal report from the convicting Court. The learned
convicting Court gave adverse opinion by contending that having
regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and the petitioner
Rgd.
Judgment wp236.24
being a life convict, he is not entitled for special remission, which
resulted into rejection of special remission to the petitioner.
4. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties we
have gone through the Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017. It
is a policy decision that all types of convicts, except 6 categories carved
out in the said government resolution, are entitled for special
remission. The tabular chart specifies that even life convicts are
entitled for special remission for a period of three months. We see
that there is no category carved out to deny special remission on
account of nature and gravity of the offence. In the circumstance, it is
apparent that the respondent Authority has seriously erred in rejecting
the urge of the petitioner for special remission. It is not in dispute that
on the date of implementation of the aforesaid government resolution,
the petitioner was in jail, meaning thereby the government resolution
would apply in his case.
5. In view of above discussion, Criminal Writ Petition is
Rgd.
Judgment wp236.24
allowed. The impugned order of rejection of special remission is
hereby quashed and set aside. We hereby hold that the petitioner is
entitled for special remission of three months in terms of the
Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017. The respondent
Authorities may act accordingly by imposing necessary conditions as it
may deem fit. Necessary orders shall be passed by the authority
within a period of two weeks from the receipt of this order.
6. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
7. Fees of the appointed Counsel be quantified as per Rules.
JUDGE J UDGE
Rgd.
Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 21/09/2024 10:51:15
