cwp-645.25 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 902 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 645 OF 2025 DNYANOBA GANGADHAR MUNDHE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... Ms. Bharati B. Gunjal Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. G.A. Kulkarni, A.P.P. for Respondent -State. ... CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ. DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2025 ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] : 1. The matter has been listed for the compliance of the directions given by this Court on 8th August 2025 wherein it was found that though in Sk. Jakir Sk. Babu vs. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition No.284 of 2006, decided on 15.09.2008), the guidelines were given and that “the judicial appraisal from the Sessions Court concerned” are the words used, meaning thereby the judicial appraisal has to be taken from the convicting court, yet, the judicial appraisals were taken from the cwp-645.25 2 Sessions Court/Judges in whose jurisdiction the jail is situated where the said convict is lodged. 2. Learned APP is producing the communication of today’s date i.e. 11th September 2025, by the Desk Officer, Home Department. It is taken on record by marking Exhibit “X”, wherein it is stated that after the pronouncement of the decision in Sk. Jakir Sk. Babu vs. State of Maharashtra, (supra), Circular was issued on 22nd May 2009, Government Resolution was issued on 2nd August 2011 and again Circular was issued on 7th September 2013 and then in this letter period of four weeks has been prayed for issuing Circular in view of the directions given by this Court on 8th August 2025. 3. We had directed the learned APP to get those circulars, mentioned in Exhibit “X”. Accordingly photo copies of the same have been produced. It appears that by Circular dated 22nd May 2009, it was informed that in view of the decision in Sk. Jakir Sk. Babu vs. State of Maharashtra, (supra), the guidelines which were given as Annexure C (izi= d) should be strictly adhered to. It is the reproduction of those guidelines. However, in this Circular it was not explained by the Government, as to which cwp-645.25 3 Court’s judicial appraisal should be taken. Therefore, in our view, the said Circular dated 22nd May 2009, was incomplete and if the State Government is of the opinion that upon the issuance of the said Circular its duty is over, then the State Government is wrong. It is the duty of the Government also to see that the guidelines of this Court are followed properly. Thereafter, the learned APP has also produced the Circular dated 2nd August 2011. However, it appears that it only made changes in the punishment and there is no reference to the decision in Sk. Jakir Sk. Babu vs. State of Maharashtra, (supra). 4. By Circular dated 7th September 2013, in Para No.10 it is stated that:- “10. v’kh f’k{ksph eatwjh feGkY;kuarj lacaf/kr l= U;k;ky;kdMqu eqY;kadu ?ks.;kr ;kos o R;kuarj canhl ekQh dikrhckcr mijksDr eqY;kadukpk lanHkZ nsowu ekQh dikrhph f’k{kk ns.;kr ;sr vlY;kph ys[kh let |koh-” 5. Herein also explanation about word “ lacaf/kr ” has not been given. It will not be out of place to mention here that there are so many cases coming before this Court wherein we have found cwp-645.25 4 that the judicial appraisal in respect of higher punishment is not sought from the convicting Court but it is sought from the Sessions Court/Sessions Judge in whose jurisdiction the jail is situated where the said convict is lodged. It was not the tenor or meaning in the guidelines that were given in Sk. Jakir Sk. Babu vs. State of Maharashtra, (supra). Therefore, we insisted that such Circular should be issued within a period of 15 days. It appears from the letter Exhibit “X” dated 11th September 2025 that the Home Department is taking the orders of this Court casually. 6. Another aspect that is required to be noted from the Circulars dated 2nd August 2011 as well as 7th September 2013, that it does not mention specific Guideline No.4, which states that:- “4) After receipt of sanction order from the competent sanctioning authority and judicial appraisal from Sessions Judge concerned, and order imposing higher punishment may be passed and communicated to the prisoner.” 7. In none of the matters we have come across the final order taking into consideration the sanction order from the competent cwp-645.25 5 sanctioning authority and the judicial appraisal, that is required to be passed mandatorily. That is also required to be included in the Circular that is required to be issued now. 8. We had not circulated the order dated 8th August 2025, to all the Sessions Judges/Additional Sessions Judges and therefore, now, we issue direction that the said order dated 8th August 2025, as well as today’s present order be circulated to all the Sessions Judges and Additional Sessions Judges in the State of Maharashtra, so that they should give the judicial appraisal in respect of those convicts who were convicted at their station/ Court and they shall not entertain the application from the jail authorities for judicial appraisal of a convict who has been lodged in the jail within their jurisdiction but was convicted at some other place. 9. Though in letter Exhibit “X” period of four weeks has been prayed, we do not find that it is justified prayer. We direct the concerned i.e. the Home Department of the State Government to issue such Circular on or before 16th September 2025. In case of failure, it would be taken as Contempt of Court. cwp-645.25 6 10. The learned Registrar (Judicial) to circulate the order dated 8th August 2025 and this order, as aforesaid, to all the Sessions Judges and Additional Sessions Judges in the State of Maharashtra. 11. Authenticated copy of this order be given to all the parties. [HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE asb/SEP25