BHASKAR SHANKAR WAGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is an accused, who has been convicted in several cases and at present he is 72 years old prisoner, undergoing the conviction, seeks to invoke Article 14, 21, 226 r/w Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash and set aside the calculation made by respondent No. 2 - the Superintendent of Jail, Yerwada Central Prison, Pune, in respect of period of sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner with respect to Sessions Case No.

(2.) /1991 decided on 20/2/2013 and to further direct the respondent No. 2 to reconsider the period of imprisonment as per the Judgment and also to issue writ of habeas corpus for his release in view of the completion by declaring that the period of detention has been undergone by him. 2. The factual matrix leading to the petition are, in short, as under : - As aforesaid, the petitioner is convicted. He has been lodged in Yerwada Central Prison, Pune, since 7/8/1994 in C.R. No. 441/1990, which was the subject matter of Sessions Case No. 6/1991. By Judgment and Order dtd. 4/8/1994, he was awarded imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,14,000.00 and in default sentence of imprisonment of 5 years. The State Government has granted him remission and declared that as regards that sentence is concerned, he has undergone the sentence. Such order was passed by respondent No. 1 - State on 21/8/2009. The petitioner was serving in Zilla Parishad, Dhule, as Clerk and he was given charge of post of Cashier. During the period 1987- 1991, several offences came to be registered against him alleging that he has committed misappropriation of funds of Zilla Parishad, Dhule. The chart of those cases and the conviction that has been awarded to him has been given as under : - <FRM>JUDGEMENT_167_LAWS(BOM)8_2022_1.html</FRM>

(3.) The petitioner has given the copies of the judgments. It will have to be mentioned that he had filed Criminal Appeal No. 19/2002, challenging his conviction before this Court. It was heard along with other appeals, which were filed by co-accused, by this Court (Single Bench) and came to be decided on 6/5/2011. His appeal came to be partly allowed. His conviction for the offence punishable under sec. 409 of the IPC was maintained, however, conviction under sec. 477 A r/ w 120 B was set aside. Thereafter he had also filed Criminal Appeal No. 482/2001 challenging his conviction and sentences in Special Case No. 99/1996 passed by learned Special Judge, Dhule and this Court by decision dtd. 5/9/2014 was dismissed. Another Criminal Appeal No. 283/2006 was filed by him challenging the conviction in Special Case No. 5/1991 and this Court by judgment and Order dtd. 27/3/2008, dismissed the said appeal. It appears that the said appeal was also decided along with the appeal filed by wife of the petitioner. In Special Case No. 2/1991, the learned Special Judge by Judgment and Sentence dtd. 20/2/2013 has sentenced the petitioner to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years for the offences under Indian Penal Code and for offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, the sentence was to suffer RI for 7 years. Fine in all of Rs.2,00,000.00 has been awarded and in case of default in payment of fine of each of it, he has been directed to suffer RI for further period of 3 years. Thus, it can be seen that on several occasions, in different cases, the petitioner has been convicted by different Special Judges. In Special Case No. 2/1991, the learned Special Judge in Clause 9 of the operative order has stated that "all the sentences imposed in the said case were to run concurrently". The petitioner is referring to all the copies of the judgment of convictions which he has annexed as Annexure 'A', and the Annexure 'B' is the communication by the State Government to respondent No. 2 dtd. 21/8/2009 stating that the petitioner should be released on completion of 24 years of imprisonment including all remissions, subject to the good conduct in the prison upto the aforesaid time of his release. Order passed by the Government on 21/8/2009 has been annexed. It was in connection with his conviction in Sessions Case No. 6 of 1991. The petitioner contends that if the operative parts of the judgment of convictions and sentences (in all cases) should have been directed to run concurrently i.e. including the default sentences. In spite of direction of sentences to run concurrently in clause '9' of the operative part in Sessions Case No. 2/1991, the Jail Authorities are treating the sentences as consecutively and, therefore, he has been directed to undergo sentence of 47 years of imprisonment and 15 years of default sentence. It is stated that he had solicited the reasons for the conclusion of the Jail authorities but they have not been provided to him. It was then the respondent No. 2 had addressed communication to learned Sessions Court/Special Judge, Dhule, seeking opinion about the actual period of sentence the petitioner is required to undergo and, therefore, the petitioner is seeking directions on the count that the respondent No. 2 is miscalculating the sentence. The default sentences ought to have been directed to run concurrently with the sentences those have been imposed in each case.