Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shankar Ganpat Dhobe, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Sessions Court, Yavatmal on 27/02/1992, and his appeal was dismissed. While serving his sentence, he was granted furlough leave for two weeks from 04/04/2001 to 18/04/2001. He failed to surrender on time and surrendered late by 385 days. The Superintendent of Jail, Nagpur Central Prison (Respondent No. 2), issued a show cause notice on 13/08/2002 proposing to forfeit remission at the rate of 5 days for each day of delay. The petitioner submitted a written explanation. However, by order dated 22/02/2003, Respondent No. 2 forfeited 1925 days of remission and removed the petitioner's name from the Remission Register for a period of seven years and six months, subject to approval by higher authorities. The petitioner challenged this punishment by way of a criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench). The court heard the petitioner's counsel, Mr. N.S. Bhat, and the Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. T.A. Mirza. The court observed that the show cause notice proposed a specific formula (5 days forfeiture per day of delay), but the final order imposed a much harsher punishment without any explanation or application of mind. The court held that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct and violated the principle of proportionality inherent in Article 21. The court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to Respondent No. 2 to pass a fresh order after considering the petitioner's explanation and in accordance with law, keeping in mind the observations regarding proportionality.
Headnote
A) Prisons Law - Forfeiture of Remission - Proportionality - The punishment of forfeiting 1925 days remission for a delay of 385 days in surrendering from furlough was held to be disproportionate and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India - The court held that the punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct and that the Superintendent of Jail must apply his mind to the explanation offered by the prisoner (Paras 6-8). B) Prisons Law - Show Cause Notice - Natural Justice - The show cause notice dated 13.08.2002 proposed forfeiture of 5 days remission for each day of delay, but the final order forfeited 1925 days without indicating the basis for such quantum - The court held that the order must reflect application of mind and the quantum must be proportionate to the misconduct (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the punishment of forfeiting 1925 days of remission and removing the petitioner's name from the Remission Register for 7 years 6 months for a late surrender of 385 days from furlough is disproportionate and illegal.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order dated 22/02/2003, and remitted the matter back to Respondent No. 2 to pass a fresh order after considering the petitioner's explanation and in accordance with law, keeping in mind the observations regarding proportionality.
Law Points
- Proportionality in punishment
- Forfeiture of remission
- Furlough
- Show cause notice
- Natural justice
- Article 21 of Constitution of India
