J. Xavier D'Souza Vs. State of Goa and Ors. (09.09.2005 - BOMHC) - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....in sub-section (1) of section 34 of the 1996 act with slight modification. therefore, reference to the provisions of section 33 of the 1940 act in article 3 of schedule-i of the bombay court fees act has to be construed, in view of the provisions of section 8 of the general clauses act, as reference to the provisions of section 34 of the 1996 act. so far as an appeal filed under section 37 of the 1996 act is concerned, perusal of section 37 shows that an appeal is provided to the appellate court against an order setting aside an arbitral award or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34. thus, as the provisions of article 3 of schedule-i do not apply to an application or petition filed under section 34 of the 1996 act, they will also not apply to the memorandum of appeal filed to set aside or modify an award made by the arbitrator under the 1996 act. in other words nothing contained in article 3 of schedule-i of the bombay court fees act applies to an application, petition or memorandum of appeal to set aside or modify any award made under the 1996 act as it does not apply to an application or petition or memorandum of appeal to set aside or modify an..........case of the petitioner was considered by the said committee on 8-8-2005. the committee in rejecting the case of the petitioner has taken note of the fact that the petitioner had completed 18 years, 5 months and 6 days of imprisonment. the district magistrate of the native place of the petitioner has not recommended the premature release of the petitioner on the ground that the mother as well the neighbours had expressed their reservations over premature release of the petitioner. the superintendent of police, south goa, also did not recommend the premature release of the petitioner on the ground that there was strong objection from the family members of the victim and there was possibility that the petitioner may take revenge on them. the superintendent of police, karwar also has not recommended the premature release of petitioner on the same grounds as given by the said district magistrate. it also appears that the prisoner has escaped from custody on 3-5-2004. the committee has taken note of the fact that although the petitioner is a resident of hiramath, honawar, karwar, the prisoner after his escape on 3-5-2004 was found at canacona where the family members and witnesses of.....

Judgment:

ORDER

N.A. Britto, J.

1. Rule.

2. Heard forthwith.

3. The petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment under Section 302 I. P. C. and has already undergone imprisonment of 18 years, 5 months and 6 days. The petitioner approached this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 26/2003 and the learned Division Bench of this Court by order dated 6-10-2003 rejected the plea of the petitioner for his early release after perusing the report of Committee for the review of sentences. The Review Committee had then stated that the Police authorities had submitted report that the petitioner may not be accepted in society in the event of his release. The Division Bench of this Court was of the view that the ground on which the petitioner's plea was rejected could not be termed as extraneous.

4. The petitioner again approached this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 51/2004. By Order dated 2-9-2004, the Petition was dismissed as premature as the case of the petitioner was to be placed before the Committee in September, 2004, after a lapse of 2 years.

5. In the affidavit filed by Ms. Meena Goltekar, who is stated to be the Superintendent of the Sub-Jail, Sada at Vasco-da-Gama, it was stated that the file of the petitioner was placed before the Review Committee on 6 occasions and lastly on 3:1 -2005 when the case of the petitioner for early release was not recommended. It was stated that the file of the petitioner would be placed again. It appears that it was placed again and the case of the petitioner was considered by the said Committee on 8-8-2005. The Committee in rejecting the case of the petitioner has taken note of the fact that the petitioner had completed 18 years, 5 months and 6 days of imprisonment. The District Magistrate of the native place of the petitioner has not recommended the premature release of the petitioner on the ground that the mother as well the neighbours had expressed their reservations over premature release of the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police, South Goa, also did not recommend the premature release of the petitioner on the ground that there was strong objection from the family members of the victim and there was possibility that the petitioner may take revenge on them. The Superintendent of Police, Karwar also has not recommended the premature release of petitioner on the same grounds as given by the said District Magistrate. It also appears that the prisoner has escaped from custody on 3-5-2004. The Committee has taken note of the fact that although the petitioner is a resident of Hiramath, Honawar, Karwar, the prisoner after his escape on 3-5-2004 was found at Canacona where the family members and witnesses of the deceased in Sessions Case No. 2/1987 were residing and not only that prisoner was also found in possession of a knife of 30 cms. length and thereafter the prisoner was tried and convicted in C.C. No. 195/3/C by Order dated 5-6-2004. Considering conduct of the prisoner, the Committee came to the opinion that the prisoner had not lost potentiality for committing crimes again and future recurrence of commission of crimes by the petitioner could not be ruled out.

6. The reasons given by the Committee for refusal to recommend the case of the petitioner for his early release are very much germane and cannot be termed to be either extraneous or unreasonable in such matters.

7. Considering the above, I find there is no merit in this petition and, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to coats.