SANJAY NIVRUTTI LATPATE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, invoking remedy under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, preferred the present Writ Petition seeking primarily following reliefs :-

(2.) The petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and he is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. After conviction, initially, the petitioner was lodged in Central Prison, Aurangabad, to serve out the punishment. Meanwhile, this petitioner was selected for confinement in Open Prison as prescribed under Rule IV of the Maharashtra Open Prisons Rules, 1971 (here-in-after, called as, "Rules of 1971", for the sake of brevity). Accordingly, the petitioner was transferred from Central Prison, Aurangabad to Open Prison at Paithan, District Aurangabad.

(3.) It has been contended that on 22-03-2019 at about 7.30 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., the Vigilance Squad constituted as per direction of the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Central Region, Aurangabad, paid surprise visit to Vihamandwa Agricultural Shed of Open District Prison, Paithan. They frisked the premises of shed of Open Prison. During search, the members of Vigilance Squad recovered mobile phone and charger. It has been alleged that the said mobile phone and charger were belonging to the petitioner. The concerned Jail authority recorded the statement of petitioner-prisoner, immediately after discovery of objectionable articles from his custody. The petitioner conceded about the guilt and confessed that the said amount was in his possession. The custody of said articles was prohibited as per Maharashtra Prison Manual, 1979. Accordingly, the detail report of surprise visit of Vigilance Squad was prepared and forwarded to concerned official of Prison, for further process. The show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. In response, he filed the reply, but, he denied about possession of objectionable article shown recovered from his custody.