Similarly, it was incumbent upon the learned
Addition Sessions Judge, Akot either to call for required
information in the context of the facts stated in the application
from the Superintendent of Central Prison, Amravati or give his
opinion immediately on receipt of the application.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 83 OF 2020
Akshay Kailasrao Purohit (In Jail) Vs State of Maharashtra,
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND G. A. SANAP, JJ.
DATED : 27.08.2021
In this writ petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution India, the petitioner is seeking directions to the
respondents to grant him remission of three months as per the
Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017.
2] The facts leading to this petition are as follows:
The petitioner was convicted by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Akot, District Akola on 01.06.2016 for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. At present he has been
lodged at Central Prison, Amravati. It is the case of the petitioner
that the Government of Maharashtra issued a Government
Resolution dated 03.06.2017 and provided that on account of
125th birth anniversary of late Shri Babasaheb Ambedkar the
prisoners undergone the sentence would be entitled for remission
in their sentence. The petitioner made an application to take the
benefit of Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017. The
Superintend of Central Prison, Amravati sought opinion of
Additional Sessions Judge, Akot in terms of Section 432 (2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. It is stated that the Additional
Session Judge, Akot did not give his opinion in the matter of
remission as provided in Government Resolution dated
03.06.2017. The petitioner has stated that he has forwarded
application to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Akot
through the District and Sessions Court, Amravati and requested
for the opinion of the learned Judge. It is stated that the despite
receipt of the communication from the Superintendent of Central
Prison, Amravati as well as application from the petitioner the
opinion was not given by the Court.
3] It is the case of the petitioner that as per the guidelines
provided in the Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017 he is
entitled for grant of remission for three months. His application is
pending. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Amravati has not
taken any decision on his application. He has therefore prayed for
issuance of directions to the respondents to consider his case for
remission in terms of the Government Resolution dated
03.06.2017.
4] The respondent No. 2 has filed the affidavit. In his
affidavit he has stated that the petitioner has claimed the
remission as per the Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017
and corrigendum dated 19.11.2018. It is stated that specific
categories have been mentioned in the Government Resolution.
According to the respondent, on receipt of the application he has
sought the opinion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akot,
District Akola. Accordingly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
gave his opinion dated 08.03.2021 and categorically stated that in
view of the serious nature of the crime, for which the appellant
has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life, he is not
entitled for the remission. It is stated in the last paragraph of the
affidavit that on receipt of this opinion from the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Akot, the petitioner was communicated
the said opinion.
5] We have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner
and the learned Additional Public prosecutor for the respondent
Nos. 1 and 2. It is undisputed that the petitioner has applied for
the remission relying upon the Government Resolution dated
03.06.2017. The perusal of the opinion of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Akot would show the reference of the application
made, by the petitioner, directly to the Court on 19.08.2019. The
application was forwarded through the Superintendent of Central
prison, Amravati. It is therefore, apparent on the face of record
that on receipt of this application from the petitioner, the
Superintendent of Central Prison, Amravati did not make a
request to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akot for his
opinion. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that it is the duty
of the Jail authority to make a request to the concerned Court for opinion as and when an application for remission on any ground is made by the convict. It is expected on the part of the
Superintendent of Central Prison to forward the application as
well as the relevant Government Policy documents or resolutions
to the concerned Court. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Amravati is required to apprise the concerned Court fully about
the fact situation in which the remission has been claimed by the
convict. It is seen on perusal of the record that Superintendent of
Central Prison, Amravati has not undertaken this exercise and as
such failed to discharge his obligation. It is further pertinent to
note that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akot, on the
application received from the District and Sessions Court,
Amravati under O.W. No. 7172 of 2019 dated 07.09.2019, gave
his opinion on 08.03.2021. The facts noted above would clearly
indicate that initially there was failure on the part of the
Superintendent of Central Prison, Amravati to take appropriate
steps in the matter. Similarly, it was incumbent upon the learned
Addition Sessions Judge, Akot either to call for required
information in the context of the facts stated in the application
from the Superintendent of Central Prison, Amravati or give his
opinion immediately on receipt of the application. On account of
the above administrative delay the application is pending since
year 2019, for taking the benefit of the Government Resolution
dated 03.06.2017. The above observation has been made in the
context of apathy on the part of the concerned authorities.
6] Be that as it may, the fact remains that the decision on
the application, made by the petitioner, has not yet been taken by
the Superintendent of Central Prison, Amravati. It is pertinent to
note that on receipt of the opinion from the concerned Court the
Superintendent of Prison is required to process the application by
following the procedure and see that the application made by the
convict is decided one way or the other. The learned Additional
Public Prosecutor has placed on record one document received
from the Superintendent of Central Prison, Amravati. Perusal of
the endorsement on this document made by the Superintendent
of Central Prison, Amravati would show that the Superintendent
of Prison has simply communicated the opinion received from the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akot to the petitioner. On
receipt of the opinion from the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Akot, the Superintendent of Central Prison, Amravati was required
to process the application and decide the same or place it before
the competent authority for decision in terms of the guidelines
provided for remission vide Government Resolution dated
03.06.2017. It is pertinent to note that despite receipt of the
notice in the writ petition, the Superintendent of Central Prison,
Amravati has not moved further to take decision one way or the
other on the application made by the petitioner seeking three
months’ remission in view of the guidelines of the Government
Resolution dated 03.06.2017. The inaction on the part of the
respondent No.2, therefore, constrained the petitioner to come
before this Court.
7] The learned Advocate relying upon the following
reported judgments of this Court submitted that the case of the
petitioner is squarely covered by the preposition laid down in the
decisions.
i] Vitthal Rayaji Gadekar .v/s. State of Maharashtra and
others, reported in, 2019 (1) Mh.L.J. (Cri) 550
ii] Satish Dada Londhe .v/s. The State of Maharashtra,
reported in, 2019 ALL MR (cri) 1125
iii] Jitendra Dayaram Jangam .v/s. State of
Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Mumbai reported
in 2021 (1) AIR Bom.R.(Cri.) 150
iv] Shekh Rafiq s/o. Sheikh Nabi, Central Prison
Amravati, .v/s. State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai ,
reported in, 2021 (1) Mh.L.J. (cri) 320.
8] The learned Advocate relying upon these judgments
submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of
remission of three months in terms of the guidelines mentioned in
Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017. In our opinion, since
the respondent No.2 has not yet taken a decision on the
application made by the petitioner, seeking remission of three
months, at this stage relying upon the preposition in the
judgments supra, no findings can be recorded. However, we
make it clear that in the decisions (supra) this Court has
considered the applicability of the Government Resolution dated
03.06.2017 to the cases of the convicts. This Court has also
considered the scope of report of the concerned Judge in the
context of the Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017. The
perusal of the judgments would show that it has been categorically
stated that the reasons stated in the report by the concerned
Judge must be germane to the issue involved in the case.
9] In view of the facts and circumstances we conclude that
the Superintendent of Central Prison, Amravati would be
required to follow the required procedure and take a concrete
decision on the application made by the petitioner for remission
keeping in mind the Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017.
We make it clear that since the application is pending since long
the decision would be required to be taken within four weeks
from today. We further make it clear that the Superintendent of
Central Prison, Amravati shall follow the required procedure while
taking the decision on the application made by the petitioner.
Hence, following order.
ORDER
1] The respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner
for grant of benefit of remission in terms of
Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017 in the light
of the observations made in the order. The same be
done within a period of four weeks from today.
2] The fees of the learned counsel appointed to represent
the petitioner are quantified at Rs.2,500/-.
3] Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no
order as to costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment