Kumar Bapuso Koli v. The Deputy Inspector General

Mr.Rohan Surve, Amicus Curiae Mr.K.V. Saste, A.P.P., for the Respondent State CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED: JUNE 12, 2012 P.C.:

Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

Heard Counsel for the parties.

This petition is filed through jail. We had requested Mr.Rohan Surve to assist the court and espouse the cause of the petitioner. He has given able assistance in the matter. We appreciate the efforts put in by the learned amicus curiae. 1 of 4 wp.663.2012.sxw

Reverting to the matter, the petitioner has been convicted for an offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is undergoing life sentence. The petitioner had applied for furlough leave in July 2011 which was granted between 9th July, 2011 till 22nd July, 2011. while he was on furlough leave, on 19th July, 2011, he submitted an application to the appropriate authority for extension of leave. That request, however, was rejected on 29/31.10.2011. The reason recorded in the impugned order is that the explanation offered by the petitioner in the application for extension is not correct. This finding is challenged in the present petition on the basis of the report given by the Additional Police inspector, Sangli dated 2nd August, 2011 which was part of the record before the appropriate authority, which has passed the impugned order. The report unmistakably notes that reason stated by the petitioner in his application for extension of furlough leave is true. The petitioner had stated in his application that his father was suffering from severe high blood pressure and would require personal attention. In support of the said reason, the petitioner had relied on the certificate issued by Dr.D.R. Patil dated 17.7.2011. The police after due enquiry has found the said reason was true and correct. 2 of 4 wp.663.2012.sxw Suffice it to observe that the finding recorded in the impugned order that the reason noted by the petitioner in the application is not correct is manifestly wrong. It would have been a different matter if the appropriate authority were to take a view that the petitioner's father is unwell is not relevant or germane ground for considering the request for extension of furlough leave. That is not the finding recorded by the appropriate authority in the impugned order. Whereas, the impugned order proceeds on the basis that the ground pressed into service by the petitioner was factually incorrect which finding is contrary to the opinion recorded by the police after due enquiry in the report dated 2 nd August, 2011 at page 13. That report was placed on record before the appropriate authority and yet the appropriate authority has recorded the contrary finding. In that case, the appropriate authority should have recorded some justification for taking a different view than the fact recorded in the police report referred to above.

As a result, we are of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained in fact or in law. The same is, therefore, quashed and set aside. Instead, the petitioner is relegated before the appropriate authority for reconsideration of his application for 3 of 4 wp.663.2012.sxw extension of furlough leave period in terms of application dated 19th July, 2011. That application will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. All questions in that behalf are kept open. We direct the appropriate authority to decide the said application expeditiously and in any case, within four weeks from receipt of a copy of this order.