1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. WRIT PETITION NO.2581 OF 2011 Ranjeet Vishwanath Deshmukh .. Petitioner V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.Prakash Naik, Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mrs. A.S.Pai, APP for the State. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE: 16th November, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent. 2. By this petition received through jail, the order passed by the Superintendent, Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba dated 08.03.211 has been challenged. By the said order, the authority imposed punishment of forfeiture of 410 days of remission on account of over stay by the petitioner beyond the parole period. 3. The learned Amicus Curiae has raised the legal question on the basis of the contents of the order dated 08.03.2011 Exhibit ‘B’. According to the learned Amicus Curiae, the order does not reflect that the Superintendent had taken prior sanction of the 2 Regional Deputy Inspector General before awarding punishment of forfeiture of 410 days of remission, as required under rule 23 of the Maharashtra Prisons (Remission System) Rules 1962. As per the said rule, prior sanction of the Regional Deputy Inspector General is necessary, before awarding punishment of forfeiture of remission for a period exceeding 60 days. That fact appears to be indisputable, inasmuch as the sanction of the Deputy Inspector General has been obtained on 16.05.2011 and the Sessions Court has approved the punishment on 25.07.2011. The fact that the Court has approved the punishment does not mean that the impugned action can be legitimized. If the law requires the order to be passed only after taking prior sanction of the Regional Deputy Inspector General as per rule 23, we fail to understand as to how the Superintendent of Kolhapur Central Prison first proceeded to pass the order and then processed it for obtaining sanction of the Regional Deputy Inspector General and the approval of the concerned Sessions Court. 4. In our opinion therefore, the order is vitiated on this singular ground. As a result thereof, even the approval order passed by the Sessions Court is treated as defaced from the record. Instead, we 3 direct the Superintendent of Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba, to reconsider the proposal of the petitioner afresh, on its own merits, and before passing the order imposing punishment the Superintendent shall obtain previous sanction of the Regional Deputy Inspector General, as required under rule 23 of the said Rules. 5. The Superintendent, Kolhapur Central Prison shall take necessary steps at the earliest and inform the final decision taken on the inquiry against the petitioner for forfeiture of remission, preferably before 31.12.2011. 6. Petition succeeds to the above extent. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. 7. We express the word of gratitude to the learned Amicus Curiae for his assistance. 8. Copy of this order be forwarded to the petitioner who is in jail for information. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)