VITHAL MOTIRAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this crimnal application, the three petitioners, who are undergoing various terms of imprisonment, seek direction to the prison autorities that they be not treated as habituil criminals or offenders but as casual prisoners from the date of their conviction on 10-2-1975 in Criminal Case No. 18 of 1974 decided by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded, and for a direction that the petitioners- are entitled to all jail remissions, facilities;.etc. as any other prisoner whe has not been classified as " habitual".

(2.) The few facts are that petitioners were first convicted in Criminal Case No. 310 of 1972 for the offences punishable under section 324 read with section 34 I. P. C| by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Deglur, District Nanded, and sentenced to undergo R. 1. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo R. I. for one month Against this order of conviction and sentece, the petitioners filed an appeal and thir conviction was altered from section 324 to section 323 I. P. C. and they were sentenced to 3 months' R. I. While they were undergoing the said sentence of 3 months, they were convicted in Criminal Case No 18 of 1974 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded, under section 325, 326 and 447 read with section 34 I. P. C. For the offence under section 325 1 P. C., each of the petitoners, was sentenced to suffer R. 1. for 3 years & 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs 1000/-in default to suffer R. I. for 6 months; for the offence under section 326 1. P. C each of them was sentenced to suffer R 1 for 3 years and 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer R I. for 6 months, and for the offence under section 447 I. P. C. each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to suffer R-1 for one month. The learned Sessions Judge, Nanded, in Criminal Appeal No, 19 of 1975, confirmed the petitoners conviction under section 325, 326 and 447 read with section 34 I. P. C, & also sentence passed upon them unocr sec. 325 and 356 read with section 34 I. P. C. However, the sentence of fine passed upon them for the offence under section447 read with section 34 I. P. C. [was confirmed but the default sentence on that count was reduced to R I. for three weeks. It appears that while issuing the warrant oo 10-2-1975, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Nanded, described the petitoners as" habitual" OH the warrants. In view of the petitoners having been decribed as " habitual" in their warrants, the petitioners were transferred to Nasik Road Central Prison on 20-2-1975

(3.) On behalf of the State, Jagannath Narayan Gawade, Jailor, Group II Nasik- Road Central Prison, has filed an affidavit setting out the facts and circumstances in which the petitioners have been transferred to Nasik Road Central Prison on account of the endorsement "habitual " appearing in the warranis received from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded. In the return, the jail authorities have been unable to point out any valid basis for categorising the petitioners as " habitual"