Suryakant Dattaram Bhambal v. The State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The petition is disposed off in terms of the above directions
Provisions considered
Judgment
Ms.Indu Varma, Advocate appointed for the petitioner. Ms.M.H.Mhatre, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. July 27, 2011. P.C.
#1. This petition has been received through jail i.e. Yerwada Central Prison at Pune where the convict is undergoing the life sentence.
#2. By the order dated 11th February 2008 issued by the Home 2 wp-1344-2011 Department and addressed to the Inspector General of Prisons, Maharashtra State, the case of the petitioner for remissions has been rejected on the ground that he was involved in a serious offence.
#3. As per the petitioner he has completed actual sentence of 18 years and a total sentence with remissions of more than 22 years. He has further pointed out that in the year 2007 itself the proposal for remissions on completion of actual sentence of 14 years was submitted in his case to the State Government.
#4. As per the report received by the learned APP the petitioner was convicted in Sessions Case No.695 of 1993 arising from C.R.No.122 of 1993 and the order of conviction and sentence was passed on 3/9/1997. If that be so, the guidelines of 11th May 1992 will be applicable to his case for remissions under Section 432 of Cr.P.C. The said guidelines do not suggest that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of remissions for his release from the prison on the basis of the said guidelines.
#5. It appears that having realised this legal position, the Home Department has addressed a letter dated 27th July 2011 to the learned APP 3 wp-1344-2011 stating that the case of the petitioner is under reconsideration and the decision of review will be taken within one month.
#6. We, therefore, direct that the petitioner’s case be reviewed and the fresh decision regarding his early release by granting him the benefit of remissions under Section 432 of Cr.P.C. as per the guidelines of 11th May 1992 be communicated to him before 30th August 2011.
#7. The petition is disposed off in terms of the above directions.
#8. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the petitioner at his present address. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is disposed off in terms of the above directions
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 432.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 11 Feb 2008. The bench was U D SALVI, B H MARLAPALLE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.