BHAVARLAL GIRILAL JAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. The petitioner, a life convict, was released on parole leave on 7/8/2012. He applied for extension of parole leave for 30 days by communication dated 16/8/2012. The office of Divisional Commissioner called for remarks on the application submitted by the petitioner from Superintendent of Police, Udaipur. It seems that, the said communication was made in Marathi language.

(2.) In the original record, we find the police report sent by the office of Superintendent of Police, Udaipur in Hindi, received by the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad regarding his initial release on parole.

(3.) From the affidavit-in-reply filed today, it seems that, as the Police officers at Udaipur could not understand Marathi language, the report called for on extension of parole leave application was not forwarded. The matter was pending in the office of Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad.