1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 898 OF 2010 Angad Vitthal Gosavi .... Petitioner vs The State of Maharashtra & ors. .... Respondents Mr. N.N. Gavankar with Mr.Afan Sait for the petitioner. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for State. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 8th June, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard. 2 Rule. 3 Mrs. Deshmukh, learned APP waives service. 4 The petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith. 5 The petitioner came to be convicted in Sessions Case No.27/95 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C., on 22.01.1996 and he was admitted to the Prison to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. On 24.04.1997 he was released on parole leave on the ground of his wife’s illness, but he did not report to the Jail after expiry of the parole leave period. He was arrested by the Police and re-admitted to the Yerwada Central Prison, Pune on 16.10.2010. 2 6 By order dated 20.11.2001 he came to be punished for a prison offence and his earned remissions were forfeited and his name was permanently removed from the remission register. The petitioner approached this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.2173/2009 which was allowed on 31.08.2009 and the order dated 21.11.2001 was quashed and set aside. The prison authorities were directed to follow the procedure laid down in the Circular dated 22nd May, 2009. The impugned order dated 13.09.2009 was allegedly served on the petitioner on 10.11.2009 and as per the same, the earlier punishment has been confirmed i.e. the name of the petitioner has been permanently removed from the remission register. 7 A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sk. Jakir Sk. Babu vs. State of Maharashtra & anr., 2008 All M.R. (Cri) 3389, has set out the guidelines which could be followed by the prison authorities while passing an order of punishment for a prison offence. 8 With the help of Mrs.Deshmukh, we have gone through the said guidelines and it is abundantly clear that while issuing the impugned order, none of these guidelines were followed. In addition, the impugned order does not give any reasons as to how and why the punishment of removal from the remission register permanently was confirmed. The Circular issued by the State of Maharashtra on 22nd May, 2009 is based on the guidelines laid down by this Court in the case of Sk. Jakir Sk. Babu (supra) and all the prison authorities have been called upon to follow the guidelines and in our earlier order dated 31.08.2009 the authorities were directed to follow these guidelines and despite these directions, the impugned order has been passed in a casual and mechanical manner and without 3 application of mind. The order is therefore unsustainable and it is necessary for the jail authorities to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner and pass an appropriate order by following the guidelines as set out in the Circular dated 22nd May, 2009. 9 Hence, the Petition succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 13.09.2009 and served on the petitioner on 10.11.2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. If the jail authorities wish to pass a fresh order of punishment for the prison offence, the procedure laid down by this Court in Sk. Jakir Sk. Babu (supra) as well as the Circular dated 22nd May, 2009 shall be followed and the fresh proceedings shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, but in any case before 31.08.2010, by a reasoned order. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ( B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)