IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2591 OF 2006. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2591 OF 2006. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2591 OF 2006. Shankar G. Patil ..Petitioner versus Superintendent, Thane Central Prison, Thane & Others ..Respondents Kuldeep Patil for the Petitioner A.S.Gadkari APP for the State Coram : S.B.Mhase & Coram : S.B.Mhase & Coram : S.B.Mhase & S.R.Sathe, JJ. S.R.Sathe, JJ. S.R.Sathe, JJ. Dated : 13th December, 2006 Dated : 13th December, 2006 Dated : 13th December, 2006 P.C. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner is a life convict undergoing imprisonment at Thane Central Prison. The petitioner was convicted on 8.2.1992 under Section 302, 34 I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. The petitioner was on parole and he was to surrender on 22.12.2004. However, he did not surrender in time and overstayed for a period of 183 days. He was required to be apprehended through police machinery. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the punishment was imposed of 729 days by the jail authorities. That order was placed before the - 2 - Additional District Judge, Thane, who by order dated 19.1.2006 modified it and instead he punished the convict for 92 days. However, thereafter the jail authorities have preferred application before the Sessions Judge for modification of the said order pointing out certain provisions of the Maharashtra Prison Manual. It was considered by the Sessions Judge and the following order is passed. " It was pointed out that minimum remission for one day unauthorised absence in one day and extends to five days. Remission of 1/2 days for absence of one day unauthorised absence is not contemplated in law. There appears patent mistake in granting remission be it is revived. It is now ordered that the remission shall be calculated for two days for absence of one day instead of 1/2 day remission for one unauthorise absence." Sd/- 8/6/2006. Thus, the sessions judge has reviewed the order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no power to the sessions judge and that the power suffers from lack of jurisdiction. Mr.Gadkari fairly conceded that there is no power to the sessions judge to review the order. However, he submitted that the liberty may be granted to the - 3 - State Government to follow the appropriate remedy as against the initial order. In view of the above referred statement, we also find that the power of review is not with the Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge has committed an error in passing the order dated 8.6.2006 referred to above. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 8.6.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge. Needless to say that the State Government, if desires to challenge the earlier order dated 19.1.2006, it will be open for them to challenge the same, subject to period of limitation. Rule made absolute accordingly. (S.R.Sathe, J.) (S.B.Mhase, J.) (S.R.Sathe, J.) (S.B.Mhase, J.) (S.R.Sathe, J.) (S.B.Mhase, J.)