Wasudeo Ninaji Sakalkale vs The State of Maharashtra and Others

A.B. Chaudhari, J.—Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited judgment of this Court in the case of Sanjay Kini Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others and submitted that in the present case the approval of the District and Sessions Judge, Amravati was obtained first on 26th of March, 2003 while order in question was passed on 19th of April, 2003. The course adopted by the respondent is exactly reverse than what is required. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly states that there appears to be mistake in first approaching the Sessions Judge in terms of judgment of this Court.

Having heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and in the light of Para No. 19 of the said judgment, which reads thus -

"19. The question is whether in the facts of this case the appraisal of the Sessions Judge must be first sought or prior approval of the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons. Under the provisions of Rule 23 of the Maharashtra Prisons (Remission System) Rules, 1962 it is clearly stipulated that before imposing higher punishment by way of forfeiture of remission exceeding 60 days the Superintendent shall obtain prior sanction of the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons. In view of the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Batra (cited supra) and considering the scheme of the provisions of the Prisons Act and the Rules framed thereunder we find that in matters where the Superintendent of Central Prison proposes punishment in excess of 60 days the proposal is required to be placed before the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and thereafter the said proposal shall be placed before the District and Sessions Judge of the concerned district for appraisal. The Superintendent of Central Prison shall place the proposal of punishment at the earliest for appraisal of the District and Sessions Judge in cases where prior sanction is not required to be obtained from the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons."

we find that in the light of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Sunil Batra Vs. Delhi Administration and Others etc., AIR 1980 SC 1579 : (1980) CriLJ 1099 : (1978) CriLJ 1741 : (1980) 3 SCC 488 : (1978) 4 SCC 494 : (1980) SCC(Cri) 580 : (1979) SCC(Cri) 155 : (1980) 2 SCR 557 : (1979) 1 SCR 392 , approval of District Judge should have been obtained subsequent to the order of grant or refusal of the remission. That being so, following order would subserve the interest of justice.

ORDER

Criminal Writ Petition No. 896 of 2014 is partly allowed.

The proceedings be remitted to the D.I.G., Eastern Region, Nagpur for following the proper procedure by taking cognizance of the aforesaid judgment of this Court in the case of Sanjay Kini Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others .

Criminal Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Fee to be paid to the learned counsel appointed for the petitioner is quantified at Rs. 1500/-.