1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.596 OF 2010. Pramod Manoharrao Banate. ... PETITIONER. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ... RESPONDENT. ... Shri Kailas More, Advocate (appointed) for petitioner. Shri N.R. Shaikh, A.P.P. for State. ... CORAM : S.B. DESHMUKH AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. 4th August, 2010. PER COURT: Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent of the parties, taken up for hearing. 2 We heard Mr. Kailas More, learned Counsel (appointed) for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. Mr. Shaikh. 3 The learned Counsel for the petitioner points out the prayers made in this petition, which we 2 reproduce herein below: “(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other order, writ or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to respondents to release petitioner on furlough and parole leave henceforth. (b) By a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, or order or directions in the like nature, the impugned order imposing the punishment upon the petitioner passed by the respondents, may kindly be quashed and set aside.” 4 The learned Counsel for the petitioner points out the order passed by the respondent dated 14th June, 2008. By this communication it has been informed to the petitioner that two weeks furlough leave was granted in his favour. After expiration of the said furlough leave, he was required to report to the authorities. He did not report accordingly. He surrendered one day after expiration of the furlough period. According to the respondent, this is in breach of Prison / Furlough Rules and therefore, punishment of cut in remission of one day is imposed by the respondent. The order passed by the respondent dated 14th June, 2008 was made over to the learned Sessions Court, Aurangabad. 3 The order passed by the competent Court is annexed at page 9 to the petition. This order seems to be dated 24th June, 2008. It is composite order in relation to seven prisoners. The present petitioner Mr. Pramod Manohar Banate is at Sr.No.2. Punishment to cut off one day remission from his permissible remission has been confirmed by the learned District Judge -1, Aurangabad i.e. competent Court. 5 The learned Counsel for the petitioner on the backdrop of this order, contended that the petitioner did surrender within time which was permissible for him. The authorities have also accepted and acceded to this contention of the petitioner. For this purpose, the learned Counsel for the petitioner points out page 11 of the compilation. It is a communication dated 5th February, 2010 addressed by the Superintendent,Aurangabad Central Prison to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Zone (Prison), Aurangabad. This communication clearly makes a mention that the petitioner did surrender within permissible time of furlough leave. However, inadvertently, it was informed earlier that he 4 overstayed one day. The proposal for punishment was also mentioned in this communication. The fact remains that by this communication in writing the respondent authority has admitted the fact of surrender of the petitioner within permissible time. In other words, from this communication, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the authority and confirmed by the D.J.-1 is illegal. 6 The learned A.P.P. points out the affidavit-in- reply filed on behalf of the respondents, which is affirmed by one Bharat Mahadeo Bhosle, Addl. Superintendent, Central Prison, Aurangabad. It is not in dispute that the consequence of the order impugned is curtailment of remission of 40 days. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-reply, a statement is made which reads, “The petitioner ought to have reported jail on 12.02.2008 on or before 12 p.m. But the petitioner has committed breach and therefore, the jail authorities had curtailed his 1 day as a punishment.” In short, in paragraph 4 of the affidavit supports the order impugned. It is not possible for us to reconcile with the para 4 of 5 the affidavit and the letter / communication at page 11. Apart from this, we have also noticed para 5 of the reply affidavit. We have seen that inadvertence on the part of jail authorities, their superiors, which has resulted in cut off of 40 days remission. In our view, the order impugned is perverse and requires to be quashed and set aside. 7 Based on the written communication annexed at page 11 to the compilation, this Criminal Writ Petition is partly allowed. The order impugned i.e. curtailment of remission of 1+9+30 i.e. totaling 40 days is quashed and set aside. The respondents to take note of this order and act accordingly. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. We quantify Rs.2000/- towards fees and expenses to the learned Counsel Mr. More, appointed for the petitioner. [ S.S. SHINDE ] [ S.B. DESHMUKH ] JUDGE JUDGE Kadam/*