VITHAL KANDUJI DALVI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is a convict, undergoing life imprisonment has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Superintendent, Yerawada Central Prison (Respondent No.1) awarding him the punishment to cut 5 days remission for each day of the petitioner's over stay with a further punishment of excluding the petitioner from remission system. The petitioner has also impugned the decision of the State (Respondent No.1) to release him after completion of 20 years of imprisonment including remissions. For proper appreciation of the prayers, a few relevant facts would be necessary:-

(2.) BY an order dated 23rd May, 1980 passed by the Additional Judge, Mumbai in Sessions Case No.126 of 1979 the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Accordingly, the petitioner has been serving out the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him. According to the petitioner, in the month of October, 1984, death occurred to his mother at village Arangoo, Taluka Lanja, Dist. Ratnagiri. He was therefore released on Parole for three days. However, since the parole of three days was not sufficient, the petitioner applied for extention. The petitioner has further stated that at about the same time his father was seriously ill and was required to be taken to Mumbai for check up and treatment. The petitioner therefore could not surrender to the jail authorities. According to him, he was staying with his sister at Tardeo, Mumbai. He was arrested by the police on 16.7.87 and brought to Yerawada Central Prison.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondents, Shri A.A.M. Sayyed, Jailor of the Yerawada Central Prison, Pune has filed his affidavit and stated that on 17th November, 1984 the petitioner was released on four days parole on account of the death of his mother and he was supposed to surrender himself on 22nd November, 1984. The petitioner however did not surrender within the prescribed time and over stayed for a period of 815 days until he was arrested by the police on 15th February, 1987. Shri Sayyed has further affirmed that as per the rules, the petitioner was awarded punishments by way of cut of 5 days remission for each day of over stay. Thus, the total remission which was liable to be out was calculated as 815 x 5 = 4075 days. It is pointed out that the total remission of 1213 days was available at the credit of the petitioner. But, out of the same the State remission cannot be curtailed. Hence, remission of only 508 days was cut. It is further affirmed that since no remission is available at the credit of the petitioner for inflicting the above mentioned punishment, he was removed from the remission system as provided under the rules. Sayyed has pointed out that the said punishment awarded to the petitioner was duly sanctioned by the Deputy Inspector of Prison as well as the District and Session Judge, Pune. It is further pointed out that the petitioner's case has been categorised in clause 6(A) of the guidelines and the Government has passed an order that the petitioner should be released on completion of 28 years of imprisonment including of remissions subject to the actual imprisonment of 14 years. Lastly, Shri Sayyed has stated the petitioner is not entitled for ordinary remission and that on 20th August, 1997 the petitioner has completed the total imprisonment of 21 years, months and 12 days including remissions.