JUDGMENT J. (Per Naresh H Patil, J.):

1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2) The petitioner, a convict undergoing sentence of life imprisonment, prays for a writ of mandamus or orders to quash and set aside the orders passed by the respondents - authorities forfeiting the period of remission on the ground of late surrender to the jail authorities beyond the sanctioned leave period of furlough and parole.

3) The petitioner contends that he was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge Thane and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. By an order dated 12th April 2006 the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, directed release of the petitioner on completion of 24 years of imprisonment including all remissions, subject to the good conduct in the prison upto the time of release.

4) The petitioner was released on furlough on 29-3-2001 for two weeks and was to surrender on 13-4-2001. But the petitioner surrendered on 18-4-2001. By an order dated 5-9-2001 the Superintendent, Nasikroad Central Prison awarded punishment in the ratio of 1 : 5 against the period of 5 days late surrendering to the jail authorities (5 days X 5 = 25 days). The said period of 25 days was directed to be forfeited from the remissions earned by the petitioner (except State remissions). The petitioner was again released on furlough on 29-11-2002 for a period of two weeks and he was supposed to surrender on 13-12-2002. But the petitioner surrendered 18 days late i.e. on 1-1-2003. The petitioner filed an application dated 12-3-2003 to the Superintendent, Central Prison Nagpur, giving details for his late surrender to the jail authorities. A medical certificate dated 7-12-2002 issued by the Primary Health Centre Saphale, Taluka Palghar was produced by the petitioner. After issuing a show cause notice dated 7-2-2003 to the petitioner as to why the remission earned by the petitioner should not be deducted in the ratio of 1 : 5, the Superintendent, Nagpur Central Prison, Nagpur by an order dated 21-3-2003 awarded punishment of forfeiture of remission in the ratio of 1 : 5 (i.e. 18 days x 5 = 90 days). The said period of 90 days was directed to be deducted from the remission earned by the petitioner.

5) The petitioner’s contention is that he was not absconding but could not surrender in time due to health problems suffered by him in support of which medical certificate was attached. Though the petitioner does not specifically raise ground of want of sanction by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons to the proposal initiated by the Superintendent, Central Prison Nagpur for imposition of punishment for more than 60 days, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised the said ground before us which we have considered at the time of hearing of this petition.

6) In response to the notice issued by this Court two Affidavits-in-Reply are filed by the Jailor, Group II of Open District Prison, Paithan. One is filed on 6th December 2007 and another on 4th February 2008. As the petitioner was put in the Open District Prison, Paithan in District of Aurangabad the Jailor Group II filed these two affidavits-in-reply. The deponent contended that the petitioner was entitled for 7 years 4 months and 18 days remission upto November 2007 and the probable date of release of the petitioner is 31-7-2008. Both the punishments imposed by the authorities against the petitioner for late surrender to the jail were approved by the concerned Sessions Judge.

7) In the second affidavit-in-reply filed by the jail authorities it is contended that the punishment proposed by the Superintendent of Central Prison was subject to appraisal by the District and Sessions Judge which was appraised by an order dated 29-3-2003 by the District and Sessions Judge Nagpur and was approved by the Deputy Inspector General of Prison Nagpur on 15-1-2008. This proceeding relates to petitioner’s 18 days late surrend

Click Here to Read the rest of this document