1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD
CRIMINALWRIT PETITION NO. 744 OF 2009
Pratapsingh Charansingh Nehang ..Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
ig .....
Shri J.R.Shah, advocate appointed for the petitioner
Shri S.D.Kaldate, APP for the respondent/State
.....
CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL
AND
SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, JJ.
DATED : 15.9.2009
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Shrihari P. Davare, J.)
Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the
learned counsel for the parties taken up for final hearing.
1 Perused.
2 The petitioner/convict namely Pratapsingh Charansingh
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:04:52 :::
2
Nehang has sent a letter from jail contending that he has
completed his sentence of 24 years including the set off and
remissions and, therefore, he be released from the jail forthwith.
The said letter was treated as Writ Petition and Shri J.R.Shah,
advocate was appointed as amicus curiae for the petitioner.
3 It is the contention of the petitioner that earlier he had
sent a letter seeking his premature release from the jail and same
was treated as Criminal Writ Petition No. 248 of 2009, which came
to be dismissed by this court vide order passed on 30.3.2009. It is
the contention of the petitioner that while dismissing the said
petition, it was observed by this court that, “from the account
given by the prison authorities, prisoner has actually undergone
14 years 10 months and 13 days imprisonment as on 20.2.2009.
He has earned remissions of 8 years 7 months and 21 days. Thus,
out of 24 years the petitioner has completed his sentence of 23
years 6 months and 4 days.” Hence, the said petition came to be
dismissed, since the petitioner had not completed full 24 years
imprisonment including remissions and set off on the date of
passing of the order dated 30.3.2009.
4 Now, it is the contention of the petitioner that
considering the observations in the said order dated 30.3.2009
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:04:52 :::
3
that the petitioner has undergone 23 years 6 months and 4 days
as on 20.2.2009 and also considering the further lapse of period
of about more than 6 months thereafter, the petitioner be
released forthwith from the jail since he has completed 24 years
imprisonment including remission and set off.
5 On behalf of the respondent, Shri Sudhakar Shankar
Kamble, Jailor Group-I, Central Prison, Aurangabad has filed
affidavit in reply and thereby opposed the present petition,
contending that the petitioner was convicted by the 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No. 153 of
1994 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian
Penal Code on 29.11.1994 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment
for life. On completion of 12 years of actual imprisonment in jail
by the petitioner, the jail authorities submitted proposal for
premature release of the petitioner to the Government and an
order was passed on 16.1.2008 and considering the offence and
category, the Government decided that the prisoner/petitioner be
confined in Aurangabad Prison and should be released on
completion of 24 years of imprisonment including remissions
subject to the good conduct of the prisoner petitioner in the prison
upto the afore said time of release.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:04:52 :::
4
6 In the context of earlier petition i.e. Writ Petition No.
248 of 2009 filed by the petitioner, the respondent submits that
the Superintendent of Jail authorities had filed the report before
this court, but due to over sight, the jail authorities wrongly typed
8 years 7 months 21 days remission; whereas the petitioner was
entitled for remission period of 6 years 7 months 21 days.
Accordingly, the respondent submits that the jail authorities sent
a letter to the Registrar of this court and communicated the said
mistake and also expressed the apology. In the result, the
respondent submits that on 31.7.2009 the petitioner has actually
undergone imprisonment of 15 years 3 months and 21 days and
he is entitled for remission for a period of 6 years 10 months and
20 days subject to his good conduct and he would be released in
the month of November, 2010 if the petitioner’s conduct is good
till then.
7 Heard learned respective counsel for the parties.
8 Considering the rival submissions, at the out set,
admittedly the petitioner is categorized under Category No.3 (b)
of the Guidelines promulgated by the Government Resolution
dated 11.5.1992, since he was convicted and sentenced by the
learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded on 29.11.1994
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:04:52 :::
5
and he is entitled to be released from the jail on completion of 24
years subject to minimum of 14 years of actual imprisonment
including set off and remissions.
9 Further admittedly the petitioner had sent the letter,
which was treated as Writ Petition No. 248 of 2009, wherein from
the account given by the prison authorities, it was observed that
the petitioner has actually undergone 14 years 10 months and 13
days imprisonment as on 20.2.2009 and it was also observed that
he had earned remission of 8 years 7 months and 21 days and it
was further observed that out of 24 years, the petitioner has
completed his sentence of 23 years 6 months and 4 days and
accordingly the said petition came to be dismissed on 30.3.2009,
since it was premature on the said date.
10 Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred the present
petition praying for his release from the jail forthwith basing upon
the afore said observations. However, now the respondent by
filing the affidavit in reply submitted that the jail authorities have
wrongly typed the remission period as ‘8 years 7 months and 21
days’ due to over sight, although the petitioner was entitled for
remission period of ‘6 years 7 months and 21 days’ and further
submitted that the letter was sent to the Registrar of this court by
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:04:52 :::
6
the jail authorities on 16.5.2009 to that effect.
11 Considering the said position, it is apparently clear that
the jail authorities had given incorrect calculation of remission
earned by the petitioner herein, may be due to over sight, and
informed that the petitioner has earned remissions of ‘8 years 7
months and 21 days’ instead of informing that the petitioner has
earned remissions as ‘6 years 7 months and 21 days’ and basing
upon the said calculations, submitted by the respondent, the
earlier order came to be passed by this court in Writ Petition 248
of 2009 on 30.3.2009, which is being modified to that extent by
separate application therefor simultaneously.
12 Besides that, the respondent has submitted that the
petitioner has actually undergone imprisonment of 15 years 3
months and 21 days as on 31.7.2009 and the petitioner is entitled
for remission of 6 years 10 months and 20 days subject to his
good conduct and the petitioner would be released in the month
of November, 2010, if the petitioner’s conduct is good till then.
Hence, in view of the said position, the present petition becomes
premature and, therefore, the same is required to be dismissed.
13 As regards the letter sent by the jail authorities on
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:04:52 :::
7
16.5.2009 to the Registrar of this Court communicating the
mistake, it was received by this office in Inward No. 335 on
19.5.2009, but the order was already passed by this court in Writ
Petition No. 248 of 2009 on 30.3.2009 and the said letter is
subsequent thereto. Apart from that, the jail authorities should
have approached the Government Pleader’s office by way of afore
said communication instead of writing the letter to the Registrar
of this court and should have taken the appropriate steps to
submit the application for modification of the earlier order passed
in Writ Petition No. 248 of 2009 on 30.3.2009 and such practice of
sending the letter by the jail authorities directly to the Registrar
of this court is required to be deprecated.
14 Moreover, while filing the replies,
reports/communications before the court, it is incumbent upon
the jail authorities and it’s staff to take utmost care and
precaution and must place the correct and proper account of the
prisoner/convict before the court and, therefore, we are inclined
to direct to conduct the departmental inquiry of the concerned
personnel who furnished incorrect account of remissions/set off
of the petitioner to this court in Writ Petition No. 248 of 2009 and
to submit the report thereof before this court at the earliest.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:04:52 :::
8
15 In the circumstances, it is apparently clear that present
petition is premature and, therefore, same stands dismissed.
However, while dismissing the petition, we direct that the jail
authorities shall deprecate the practice of writing letters directly
to the Registrar of this Court and they are directed to approach to
this court through the Government Pleader’s office hence forth
and we further direct that the departmental inquiry of the
concerned personnel who furnished
ig the incorrect account of
remissions/set off pertaining to the petitioner to the court in Writ
Petition No. 248 of 2009, be conducted and report thereof be
furnished before this court at the earliest.
16 Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Prisoner
be informed accordingly. Rule is discharged. Shri J.R.Shah,
learned counsel was appointed for the petitioner. The High Court
Legal Services Sub-Committee at Aurangabad shall pay the
counsel’s fees as per Rules. Registry to send copy of this order to
concerned Jail Authorities for the afore said compliance.
(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)
dbm/crwp744.09
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:04:52 :::