SURYAKANTALIAS BANDU RANOJI ANDEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Xx xx xx

(2.) The petitioner seeks declaration to the effect that his detention in Yerwada central Prison by the respondents for the period from 19-05-2003 to 30-12-2003 was illegal and on that count seeks direction to the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 2 lacs. The basis for allegation regarding detention for the said period is that the petitioner, under letter dated 08-07-2002 by the Superintendent of the said jail, was informed about the date of release of the petitioner to be 19-05-2003 but he was actually released only on 30-12-2003. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that the intimation given to the petitioner by the Jail Superintendent under letter dated 08-07-2002 was not a correct information and once it was realised that the petitioner was not entitled to avail the benefit of the period spent by him on parole and furlough leave as well as the period during which he did not surrender after availing the leave, for the purpose of calculation of minimum period of life imprisonment, the date of release of the petitioner was corrected and he was released on 30th December, 2003 on completion of the required period in the imprisonment. Reliance is also placed in that regard in the letter dated 11-02-2003, copy of which is annexed as Exh-A to the affidavit in reply. Reliance is also sought to be placed in the decision of the Apex Court in Union of india and Ors. Vs. Sadha Singh, reported in (1999) 8 SCC 375. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, however sought to distinguish the said decision of the Apex court by submitting that the decision therein applies to the persons undergoing the imprisonment under Army Act and not otherwise. She has also submitted that, in the absence of necessary chart being made available in relation to the various remissions and parole leave and statutory benefits enjoyed by the petitioner, the petitioner will not be able to ascertain the exact date on which he ought to have been released on completion of the period of his imprisonment.

(3.) The petitioner has approached the Court with specific plea that there has been illegal detention of the petitioner for the period from 19-05-2003 to 30-12-2003 in yerwada Central Prison. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was detained in the said prison pursuant to his conviction by the sessions Judge under Sec. 302 of the I. P. C. under judgment dated 30-07-1987 in relation to C. R. No. 150 of 1985 which was lodged at pharas Khana Police Station, Dist.- Pune. Undisputedly, he was arrested in connection with the said offence on 14-06-1985 and since then he was detained in the custody. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was required to undergo actual minimum period of 14 years of imprisonment for compliance of the order in relation to the punishment for the life imprisonment on conviction under sec. 302 of the I. P. C. At the same time, it is also not in dispute that the petitioner had availed parole and furlough leave from time to time in accordance with the law. It is also not in dispute that nearly for a period of 90 days he had over-stayed while availing such facility. In the back ground of these facts it is also undisputed fact that minimum period of actual imprisonment of 14 years was required to be completed in the jail and over all period including the remission and parole leave, the maximum period which was required to undergo was 24 years. In the back ground of those facts, it was primarily necessary for the petitioner to establish that the detention of the petitioner beyond 19-05-2003 and upto 30-12-2003 was not in accordance with the provisions of law pertaining to the calculation of the period of minimum 14 years excluding the furlough and parole leave as well as other benefits, if any, available. The petition nowhere discloses any such effort on the part of the petitioner apart from vague allegation that the petitioner was illegally detained beyond 19-05-2003. No doubt, the basis for allegation has been the letter dated 08-07-2002 issued by the Jail superintendent. However, once the respondents have stated on oath that the said intimation was based on wrong calculation and that the correct calculation required detention of the petitioner till 30-12-2003 and more particularly taking into consideration the decision of the Apex Court in Sadha Singh, it was necessary for the petitioner to disclose on record as to how the calculations arrived at by the respondents are wrong or incorrect in relation to the minimum period the petitioner could have been detained in the jail.