Mumbai: Observing that it is passed casually and without application of mind, the Bombay High Court has set aside an order which had penalised a life convict who jumped parole, by cancelling his remission for 515 days and removing him from remission system for 10 years.
A bench headed by Justice Abhay Oka described the impugned order of December 3, 2002, passed by a Sessions Judge as a ruling given with “non-application of mind”.
“We may note here that when the learned Sessions Judge makes a judicial appraisal of the proposed penalty to be inflicted on the prisoner, he (the Judge) is expected to apply his mind to the material on record.
“He must record brief reasons after consideration of the record. Only after a reasoned order of appraisal is passed by the learned Sessions Judge that the punishment can be imposed,” said the bench in a recent judgement.
“In the present case, non-application of mind is writ large on the face of the impugned order. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order with a direction to the Competent Authority to pass a fresh order after a fresh judicial appraisal by the learned Sessions Judge,” the bench observed.
The High Court also gave a time frame of three months for the competent authority to pass a fresh order and kept all the contentions on merits open.
47-year-old Vaity, who is serving life imprisonment in Yerwada Prison in Pune, was convicted on May 15, 1992 in a murder case.
His appeal was dismissed on April 7, 1994. On January 21, 1997, Vaity was released on parole and the period was extended from time to time which expired on April, 20, 1997.
Vaity said he could not surrender in time as he was required to look after his ailing father who was suffering from paralysis. He was arrested on December 8, 2001, and taken to jail. Vaity was issued a show cause notice as to why he should not be penalised for breaching conditions of parole.
He replied on December 18, 2001 and almost a year later he was penalised. Being aggrieved, he filed a petition in the High Court challenging the order.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order has been passed in a readymade format after filling in gaps left therein.
He submitted that the High Court has repeatedly deprecated the practice of passing such orders.
The Government Pleader argued that there was a gross delay in approaching this Court in as much as the orders passed in 2002 are sought to be challenged after 10 or more years.
He, therefore, submitted that no case for interference by the High Court was made out. However, the High Court bench said, “it is true that there is a delay in approaching the Court. The Petitioner is a prisoner undergoing life sentence.
The impugned order is an order of drastic nature by which not only his remission for 515 days has been cancelled, but he has been removed from the remission system for a period of 10 years.”
“The impugned order affects the rights of the Petitioner in as much as the said order will adversely affect him when his case is considered for a premature release”.
“There is one more reason why this is a fit case to interfere. The impugned order has been passed by using a readymade printed proforma with blank spaces. While passing order, only blanks have been filled in.
The practice of passing such orders is repeatedly deprecated by this Court”, the bench said. (PTI)
