1 wp219610 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2196 OF 2010 Jalinder Singh Ajit Singh Kalyani ...Petitioner VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr. Subhash Jha appointed as amicus curiae Mr. D.P. Adsule, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE: 24TH NOVEMBER, 2010 P.C.:- This petition is filed through jail. 2. We requested Mr. Jha to appear as amicus curiae to espouse the cause of the petitioner. He graciously accepted the said request. 3. The petitioner herein challenges the decision of the Appropriate Authority to impose punishment for over-staying the furlough leave period by 212 days. The petitioner was released on 2 wp219610 furlough leave on 16th March, 2006, and he was supposed to surrender on 31st March, 2006, but he did not do so. He was eventually arrested by the police on 29th October, 2006. The case of the petitioner is that as soon as he was released on furlough leave, he made application to the Appropriate Authority to offer extension of furlough leave on the ground that his wife was unwell. It is, however, noticed from the record that no extension was given as prayed by the petitioner. 4. We have come across similar cases in the past, being Criminal Writ Petitions No. 1468, 1407, 1949, 2010, 2061, 2508, 2511 and 2513 all of 2010. In all these cases, similar plea was taken, which has been rejected by this Court. 5. Insofar as the present case is concerned, from the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary (Appeal and Security), Home Department, it is noticed that while over-staying the furlough leave period, the petitioner has committed 5 serious offences such as Sections 392, 395 of the Indian Penal Code, including of the Arms Act. 6. Considering th above, no fault can be found with the decision of the Appropriate Authority in imposing punishment of 3 wp219610 deduction of remission period at the rate of 1:5. It is a matter of fact that the petitioner over-stayed for a period of 212 days and was eventually "required to be arrested by the police". For that reason, the remission period deducted is of 1060 days. Accordingly, there is no reason to find fault with the decision of the Appropriate Authority, which is in conformity with the statutory rules, in particular Rule 2(a) thereof. 7. Learned amicus curiae, however, invited our attention to the Government Resolution dated 22nd May, 2009. Category 9 in Schedule 'A' of the said Resolution provides that if the convict over-stays furlough leave for 6 months, he would be permanently deprived of the remission facility. It is not necessary for us to examine this argument, as it does not arise in the fact situation of the present case. 8. This petition is, therefore, rejected. 9. The Court expresses word of gratitude for the able assistance given by the learned amicus curiae. 10. A copy of this order be forwarded to the petitioner, who is in jail. A.P. BHANGALE, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.