Shankar Govindrao Landge vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

(PER : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

By this petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondent-Authorities to correct/reconsider the remission record of the petitioner in accordance with the applicable Prison Rules and Government Notification No.8177 of 2018 dated 07.10.2019 and also a direction to the respondent-Authorities to include the remission benefits for the period from 2018 to 2022 in the petitioner’s remission calculation.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was undergoing life imprisonment at Central Jail, Nagpur. He has already undergone 18 Years and 6 Months of imprisonment. In the year 2012, the petitioner was released on parole, however since the petitioner did not return to the prison on his own, after expiry of 265 days he was brought to the Central Jail, Nagpur and his name was removed from the remission register as a penal consequence under the Prison Rules. Thereafter, the Government of Maharashtra issued Notification No.8177 of 2018 dated 07.10.2019 providing re-registration of inmates whose names had been removed from the remission register on account of their conduct and upon completion of prescribed eligible period, the petitioner’s name was re-registered in the remission register in the year 2021 despite he became eligible for the same in the year 2019. In view of above, the petitioner has approached this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the Government Resolution dated 07.10.2019 and submitted that in view of the said Government Resolution the petitioner was entitled for inclusion of his name in the remission register in the year 2019 itself however, he was considered from 2022 and therefore the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner was firstly released on furlough leave and since he did not return on his own, he was arrested by the police authorities on 10.01.2013 after 265 days. Therefore, as per the Government Resolution dated 02.08.2011 the prisoner who overstays for more than six months has to be removed from the remission register and in view of above the petitioner was awarded punishment for overstaying on furlough leave by removing his name from the remission register. However, in view of the Government Resolution dated 07.10.2019, he became eligible for restoration of his name on 10.01.2019 after completion of six year’s term. The judicial appraisal was received on 15.11.2019. however, the petitioner was released on parole leave on 09.01.2020 and he surrendered on 24.02.2020. The petitioner was again released on parole leave on 13.05.2020 as per the Government Resolution dated 08.05.2020 in view of Covid pandemic and the petitioner surrendered to the prison authorities on 02.06.2022. The petitioner was again released on furlough leave on 18.10.2022 and he surrendered to the prison authorities on 26.11.2022. When he was on furlough leave, the meeting was held on 09.11.2022 for restoration of his name on the remission register however, in view of his absence he could not be produced before the Committee. His name was considered and approved by the Committee in the next meeting which was held on 08.02.2023. In view of the above, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has prayed for dismissal of the criminal writ petition.

After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioner was undergoing life imprisonment at the Central Jail, Nagpur. There is no dispute that he has undergone 18 Years and 6 Months imprisonment. Undisputedly, the petitioner was released on furlough for 14 days on 06.04.2012, however since he did not return or surrender, he was brought back by the prison authorities 265 late and therefore his name was removed from the remission register by the respondent-Authorities by way of punishment after getting appraisal from the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 15.11.2019.

The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.780 of 2021 and this Court observed in the judgment dated 07.01.2022 that considering the fact that though the Superintendent of Central Prison, Nagpur issued a show cause notice to the petitioner for committing breach of the conditions of the Prison Act, 1894, he did not file any reply to the said notice. In view of above, this Court dismissed the aforesaid writ petition filed by the petitioner.

Subsequent events show that the Additional Director General and Inspector General of Prisons, Maharashtra State vide order dated 07.10.2019 directed that the petitioner would be entitled for inclusion of his name in the remission register only after a jail term of six years is completed by him. In view of the aforesaid order, the petitioner was not entitled for inclusion of his name in the remission register on 10.01.2019. Thought the judicial appraisal was obtained on 15.11.2019, the petitioner was released on parole on 01.01.2020 and the said leave was extended for further fifteen days and the petitioner surrendered on 24.02.2020. Thereafter, in view of the Government Resolution dated 08.05.2020, the petitioner was released on Emergency Covid-19 parole on 13.05.2020 and the petitioner surrendered before the jail authorities on 02.06.2022. The petitioner was again released on furlough leave on 18.10.2022 and the petitioner surrendered on 26.11.2022. When he was on furlough leave, the meeting was held on 09.11.2022 for restoration of his name on the remission register however, in view of his absence he could not be produced before the Committee. His name was considered and approved by the Committee in the next meeting which was held on 08.02.2023.

Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Prisons (Remission System) Rules, 1962 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1962’) states that the remission is a concession and not a right. Rule 4 of the said Rules deals with various kinds of remission. Rule 6 of the said Rules states the classes of prisoners eligible for ordinary remission. Rule 8 of the said Rules deals with scale of ordinary remission. Rule 8(2) of the said Rules states that where a prisoner eligible for remission under Rule 6 is unable, for reasons beyond his control, to participate in the institutional activities during any month or if no work is allotted to him in any month, he may, if his conduct during that month was good, be granted remission at the scale earned by him during the month immediately preceding such month. Rule 9 of the said Rules deals with the procedure of calculating ordinary remissions.

In the case of Anil Kumar Versus State of Haryana & Others [(2023) 18 SCC 601], while answering to the short question "whether a convict/prisoner who has been released on temporary parole/ emergency parole, pursuant to the decision of the High-Powered Committee constituted as per the orders passed by this Court in SWM (C) No.1 of 2020, such parole period shall be counted towards the total period of sentence of the convict/prisoner?", the Hon'ble Apex Court, by referring its earlier decision in State of Haryana & Others Versus Mohinder Singh [(2000) 3 SCC 394], specifically observed and held that the period of parole shall not be counted towards the total period of sentence. It is also observed and held that when a prisoner is on parole, his period of release does not count towards the total period of sentence. Similarly, in Rohan Dhungat & Others Versus The State of Goa & Others [Special Leave Petition (Cri.) Nos.12574-77 of 2022], the Hon’ble Apex Court has an occasion to consider the similar issue/ question and after taking into consideration the object and purpose of parole, it is observed and held that the period of release on parole shall not be counted for the purpose of considering the actual imprisonment and the said period of parole has to be excluded. In Rohan Dhungat & Others (supra), the Apex Court has observed in paragraph 10 as under:

Thus, the Rules of 1962 specifically lay down that the prisoner gets concession by way of remission and it is not his right. Even, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rohan Dhungat & Others (supra) has specifically observed that for the purpose of considering actual imprisonment, the period of parole is to be excluded. Considering the circumstances as narrated above, the petitioner was not in jail during above said period. He was not present before the Committee of the jail authorities for considering his name for inclusion in the remission register on 09.11.2022 because at that time he was released on parole/furlough leave. Therefore, his name was considered and approved by the Committee of the jail authorities in the next meeting which was held on 08.02.2023. The conduct of the petitioner is already noticed by this Court in the judgment dated 07.01.2022 in Writ Petition No.780 of 2021.

In view of above, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. The criminal writ petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged.