Case Note & Summary
The petitioner was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment at Aurangabad Central Prison. On 13 November 2009, he was released on furlough and was required to surrender by 5 December 2009, but he surrendered only on 4 May 2010, resulting in a delay of 150 days. The prison authorities issued a show cause notice, and after considering his reply, forwarded a proposal to the Sessions Court at Aurangabad for removal of his name from the remission register for five years. By judicial appraisal dated 21 July 2011, the Sessions Court ordered the removal of the petitioner from the remission register for a period of five years. The petitioner filed the present criminal writ petition in 2017 challenging the said order on the ground that it was passed without recording reasons, on a printed proforma, and without considering his suo motu surrender and the limitation under Section 23 of the Maharashtra Prison (Remission System) Rules, 1962, which permits forfeiture only up to 60 days. The respondent State defended the order, contending that the petition suffered from delay, that the overstay of 150 days attracted the penalty under a Circular dated 22 May 2009, Schedule A Clause 8, and that the procedure of show cause and natural justice was duly followed. The High Court observed that although there was delay in filing the petition, the impugned order affected the petitioner's liberty. The court found that the order was passed on a ready-made printed proforma with blank spaces filled in, a practice repeatedly deprecated by the court. Relying on the guidelines laid down in Sk. Jakir Shaikh Babu v. State of Maharashtra, the court held that the Sessions Judge had not recorded reasons, demonstrating non-application of mind. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed to the extent of the petitioner, and the competent authority was directed to pass a fresh order within three months after a fresh judicial appraisal with a reasoned order, keeping all contentions on merits open. The petition was thus partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prisons and Remission - Forfeiture of Remission for Overstay on Furlough - Maharashtra Prison (Remission System) Rules, 1962, Section 23 - The petitioner, a life convict, overstayed furlough by 150 days and was removed from the remission register for five years by a Sessions Court order passed on a printed proforma without recording reasons. The High Court held that the order suffered from non-application of mind and violated the procedural guidelines requiring a reasoned order and proper judicial appraisal. The impugned order was quashed and a fresh order was directed to be passed within three months after giving the petitioner an opportunity and obtaining a reasoned judicial appraisal. (Paras 5-6, Order)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 21.07.2011 removing the petitioner from remission register for 5 years was passed in accordance with law and with proper reasoning and procedure
Final Decision
Petition partly allowed; order dated 21.07.2011 quashed to the extent of the petitioner; fresh order to be passed with reasons after judicial appraisal within three months; all contentions on merits kept open.
Law Points
- forfeiture of remission
- reasoned order
- printed proforma
- non-application of mind
- natural justice
- judicial appraisal
- guidelines in Sk. Jakir Shaikh Babu v. State of Maharashtra
