Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 126 (BOM)

VISHNU TEJRAM BISEN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2006-01-31

A.P.LAVANDE, D.S.ZOTING

body2006
Judgment D. S. ZOTING, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Rule returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of both the parties. ( 2 ) HEARD Mr. N. S. Bhat, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kankale, the learned APP for the respondents/state. ( 3 ) PETITIONERs case in brief is as under :- the petitioner is the prisoner, who is undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life awarded by Sessions Court, Gondia, for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was released on Parole for a period of 30 days. He did not surrender within time but applied for extension of parole. No intimation was sent to the petitioner as to what had happened to his application. The petitioner, after waiting for some time, on his own surrendered on 18th October, 1997. As he surrendered late by 30 days the Superintendent of prison held enquiry and imposed punishment of 5 days remission cut for each days absence. The Superintendent of Prison has imposed cut of 150 days in the remission earned by the petitioner and forwarded a proposal of cut in remission of 150 days to the Sessions Judge, Nagpur for approval and the said proposal was approved by the Sessions Judge, Nagpur as well as the Inspector General, maharashtra State, Pune. The petitioner has challenged the said order of punishment by this writ petition before this Court. ( 4 ) WE have perused the documents placed on record. It appears from the record that the petitioner was released on parole on 18th August 1997 for a period of 30 days. The period of parole expired on 18th September 1997. It is to be noted that the parole was granted on the ground of illness of mother of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, after his release on parole when he visited his house he noticed that his mother was serious and therefore, he thought that it would not be possible to complete the treatment of his mother within a short period of 30 days. Therefore, on 23-8-1997 he sent application to the Divisional commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur for extension of period of parole for 60 days. Along with the said application he had also sent medical certificate dated 23-8-1997 issued by the Medical Officer, Rural Hospital, Tiroda, District buldhana. Therefore, on 23-8-1997 he sent application to the Divisional commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur for extension of period of parole for 60 days. Along with the said application he had also sent medical certificate dated 23-8-1997 issued by the Medical Officer, Rural Hospital, Tiroda, District buldhana. The Medical Officer has opined that the mother of the petitioner would require treatment for further period of two months as she was suffering from severe Anaemia with hypertension. The record further shows that the commissioner has received the application of the petitioner for extension of parole on 3rd September 1997. However, he had not granted the extension of parole nor rejected the application of the petitioner. The petitioner of his own thereafter surrendered on 18th October 1997. ( 5 ) IT appears from the record that the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur, has informed the Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur vide his letter dated 22-12-2000 that the application of the petitioner had been rejected and thereafter the Superintendent of Prison imposed punishment of 5 days remission cut for each days absence and imposed cut of 150 days in remission earned by the petitioner. Similarly, it appears from the petition that the Superintendent of prison had not extended the benefit of giving 30 days of annual good conduct remission to the petitioner for the year 1997 on the ground that petitioner surrendered late by 30 days. ( 6 ) AFTER going through the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, we find that the Commissioner ought to have considered the fact that the application of the petitioner was supported by Medical Certificate issued by Medical Officer, tiroda. He ought to have considered that the petitioner had applied for extension of parole well in advance before the expiry of the period of parole and he himself surrendered on 18th October 1997. In our opinion, the punishment imposed on the prisoner/petitioner is not proper. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the order of punishment passed by Superintendent, Central Prison is modified and cut in remission is reduced from 150 days to 30 days. Considering the facts and circumstances, the failure on the part of the Authority to extend benefit of 30 days annual good conduct remission to the petitioner for the year 1997 would not be justified. Considering the facts and circumstances, the failure on the part of the Authority to extend benefit of 30 days annual good conduct remission to the petitioner for the year 1997 would not be justified. The competent authority should reconsider the said aspect within a period of three manths from the date of this order. ( 7 ) THE petition is, therefore, allowed in above terms. Rule is made absolute in above terms. Petition allowed.