1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.333 OF 2009. PETITIONER : Haresh S/o Lakhan Baidbansi, Convict, Central Prison, Nagpur (IN JAIL).S -VERSUS- RESPONDENTS: 1 The State of Maharashtra through Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur. 2 The D.I.G. Prisons, Nagpur. Shri R. A. Jaiswal, Advocate H/F Shri S. A. Jaiswal advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. S. S. Jachak, APP for respondents. CORAM: A. H. JOSHI AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED: 20th DECEMBER 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT :(PER A.H. JOSHI J) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard by consent. 2. Papers placed on record by the petitioner as a part of writ petition paper book are adequate to decide this petition. 3. The petitioner has challenged two punishments. 4. The details of the first punishment read as follows: [a] The petitioner was released on furlough for 15 days on 22-7-2003. [b] He reported late by 15 days. [c] A show cause notice was therefore, issued on 21-8- 2 2003, to which he replied on the same day. [d] Punishment was confirmed in accordance with law and he has been punished by forfeiture of 5 days for one day late for 75 days. 5. We have perused the reply filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 21-8-2003 i.e. on first occasion under challenge 6. In his reply, he had submitted that his father Lakhan Masuriya Betbansi, aged 55 years, had suffered heart attack and he was taken to doctor and the evidence in the shape of Medical Certificate was with him. It is not evident whether the documents were produced or production was refused. 7. Considering the ground of ill health and in particular, heart attack suffered by his father which evidence was supported by the petitioner in the light of the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 326, Navneet VS. State of Maharashtra and another, instead of losing further time in remanding the case, we propose to reduce the forfeiture from five times to two times the delayed days. 8. The forfeiture at first event thus shall be 30 days instead of 75 days which has been ordered. 9. On second occasion, which is under challenge, when he was released on parole to meet his mother who was sick, he reported late by 30 days even after availing one extension. 3 10. In so far as the second occasion challenged in this petition is concerned, we have perused the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice. 11. The details of the second punishment read as follows: [a] The petitioner was released on parole for 30 days. [b] He reported late by 35 days. [c] A show cause notice was therefore, issued on 9-9-2006, to which he replied on 23-9-2006. [d] Punishment was confirmed in accordance with law and he has been punished by forfeiture of 3 days for one day late for 105 days. 12. Reply does not spell out any cause which is justifiable cause whatsoever. The sole reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to earlier i.e. Navneet's case that because the petitioner's application for extension was not considered, a lenient view be taken, has no application to the present case. 13. We, therefore, decline to grant any indulgence in second punishment. 14. In the result, petition is partly allowed. 15. Rule is made absolute in terms of para 8 & 12. JUDGE JUDGE //MULEY// 4