1603cwp94.11.odt 1/6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 94 of 2011. Abdul Sayeed Abdul Majid ..vs.. The State of Mah. through Divisional Commissioner, Amravati and ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.S.A. Jaiswal and R.A.Jaiswal Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.T.A.Mirza, APP for the respondents. CORAM : V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND PRASANNA B.VARALE, JJ. DATED : 16TH MARCH, 2011. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been removed from the remission system for a period of one year and four months. 3. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was released on parole on 18/10/2007. He surrendered back to prison on 18/2/2008 There was delay of 92 days in surrendering to prison. On account of the overstay of 92 days, the petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 20/2/2008 wherein he was asked to show cause why prison punishment should not be imposed on him as he had overstayed for 92 days. The petitioner submitted reply to the said show cause notice on 25/2/2008. 1603cwp94.11.odt 2/6 After considering the reply, the Superintendent, Central Prison, Amravati awarded punishment of forfeiture of remission of three days for each day of overstay i.e. in the ratio of 1:3 i.e. 92 x 3 = 276 days. 4. At the time when the punishment was imposed, the petitioner had only 163 days remission to his credit. Hence, the remission of 163 days was forfeited and the name of the petitioner was removed from the remission register for three months and 23 days by order dated 15/3/2008. 5. However, thereafter it was found that there was mistake in calculation because 3 months and 23 days period was calculated as follows - “ 276 days of remission was to be forfeited. There was 163 days remission to the credit of the petitioner. Therefore, 276 – 163 = 113 days. Therefore, the authority calculated that, for 113 days the name of the petitioner has to be removed from the remission register which comes 3 months and 23 days i.e. 113 days. It was noticed that in order to amass remission of 113 days, as per the Scale of Remission, the petitioner would have to be removed from the remission system for one year and 4 months. Hence the order dated 15/3/2008 was withdrawn and fresh order came to be issued on 25/7/2008 removing the name of the petitioner from the 1603cwp94.11.odt 3/6 remission system for one year and four months. In view of the Rules provided under the remission system, we find that this calculation is indeed correct. Hence, the petitioner would have to be removed from the remission system for one year and four months to make up for forfeiture of remission of 113 days. 6. The Rules relating to the remission system as provided under the Maharashtra Prison Manual provides for four categories of prisoners; (a) Convict overseers, (b) Night Watchmen, (c) Other Prisoners, and (d) Prisoners working on conservancy jobs. Admittedly, the petitioner does not fall in category of (a) (b) and (d). Hence, he will fall in category (c) which is Other Prisoners. The scale of remission provided to 'Other prisoners' is as under - (i) Three days per month, for good behaviour, discipline and participation in the various institutional activities, such as physical training, educational programmes and the like; and (ii) Four days per month, for performing the allotted work in accordance with the prescribed standards. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as the conduct of the petitioner is good in prison and he is working in accordance with the prescribed standards, he is entitled to seven days 1603cwp94.11.odt 4/6 remission in a month. We agree with this calculation, however, it is noticed that the petitioner had to forfeit an additional remission of 113 days. If it is calculated at the rate of seven days a month as per the scale of remission applicable to him, he would have to be removed from the remission system for one year and four months. The calculation would be as follows - 1 year and 4 months = 16 months 16 months x 7 days of remission per month = 112 days i.e. almost 113 days. Thus, we see no error in the calculations made by the authorities. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that by order dated 15/3/2008, the remission of 163 days, which was to the credit of the petitioner, was forfeited and his name was removed from the remission register for 3 months and 23 days. Thereafter, suddenly by order dated 25/7/2008 he was removed from the remission register for 1 year 4 months. This was done without giving a fresh notice to the petitioner informing him that he would be removed from the remission system for 1 year and 4 months. As far as this aspect is concerned, we have already observed above that the show cause notice dated 20/2/2008 states that as the petitioner was overstayed for 92 days, why prison punishment should not be imposed on him. The petitioner has given a reply to the said show cause notice and thereafter the punishment 1603cwp94.11.odt 5/6 was awarded. Thus, it is noticed that the petitioner was given an opportunity to state about the overstay of 92 days and to show cause as to why prison punishment should not be imposed upon him. In such case, in our view, fresh notice was not at all necessary. If in the earlier notice the petitioner had been called upon to show cause why he should not be removed from the remission system for 3 months 23 days, then it is possible that a fresh show cause notice may have been necessary if a higher punishment was awarded, but such is not the case, hence, it was not required to give a fresh notice. 9. Thereafter, the petitioner has prayed that departmental enquiry may be initiated against respondent no.3 i.e. The Superintendent, District Prison, Amravati and the petitioner be granted compensation for removing his name from the remission register for the period of one year and four months without any reason and without show cause notice. We have already observed that the show cause notice was indeed given to the petitioner, hence, this contention has no substance. Looking to the rules relating to remission framed under the Maharashtra Prison Manual, it cannot be said that the order was without any basis. In fact, the order passed by respondent no.3 is just and correct. There is no question of illegal detention as raised by the petitioner. Hence, no case is made out to grant relief. As far as prayer clause (5) is concerned, it is relating to R.T.I. It is not proper to club prayers relating thereto, to the prayers in this petition, hence, liberty is granted to the 1603cwp94.11.odt 6/6 petitioner to prefer a separate petition in relation thereto, if he so desires. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any error in the order passed by the authority in relation to removal of the petitioner from the remission system for 1 year and 4 months. Hence, the petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE chute