1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 279 OF 2011. Vishal Ambadas Dabhane .vs. The State of Maharashtra & others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Ms. S.B. Saikhede, Advocate for petitioner, Mr. N.S. Khubalkar, A.P.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATED : JUNE 28, 2011. Heard Ms. S.B. Saikhede, learned Advocate for petitioner and Mr. N.S. Khubalkar, learned A.P.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3. 2] The petitioner has challenged the prison punishment imposed on him of cutting of remission in the ratio of 5 days for each day of overstay. 3] The petitioner was released on furlough on 15.12.2006 for 14 days. Thereafter, on his application the said period of furlough was extended by another 14 days. 2 He had to surrender on 13.1.2007. However, the petitioner did not surrender in time and in fact he had to be arrested by the police and brought back to prison. There was overstay of 184 days. On account of the overstay, show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice stating therein that on account of serious illness of his mother, he did not report back to prison in time. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner did not enclose any medical certificate in support of his claim that his mother was ill. This fact is admitted by the petitioner at the end of his reply to the show-cause notice . 4] After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the Superintendent, Nagpur Central Prison submitted proposal for approval to the Inspector General of Prison, Nagpur for imposing punishment of cutting of remission of 5 days for each day of overstay. The Inspector General of Prisons approved the proposal by order dated 14.2.2008. Thereafter, the proposal for imposing punishment was submitted to the District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur. It was approved by the District & Sessions Judge vide order dated 25.6.2008. The punishment imposed on the petitioner commenced from the date when the District & 3 Sessions Judge, Nagpur granted approval. In view of the above facts, it is noticed that the concerned authorities have imposed the punishment after following all due procedure. 5] Ms. S.B. Saikhede, learned Advocate for petitioner, submitted that in fact the petitioner himself was under treatment as he had suffered sprain of his right ankle on account of fall. Due to the injury, he was unable to walk and he was prescribed rest from 15.3.2007 to 10.7.2007. The medical certificate stating this fact is annexed to the petition. It is noticed that now the petitioner is relying on this medical certificate in which it is stated that he was unable to walk and it is contended that on account of this, he was not able to report back to the prison in time. However, when show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, in the reply there is no mention that he had suffered any injury to his foot on account of which he was advised bed rest; but in the reply to the show-cause notice he has categorically stated that his mother was seriously ill and in fact her condition was so critical that it was apprehended that she may even expire. In reply to the show-cause notice, it is specifically stated that it is on account of this that he could not report back in time as he was busy running from place to place in order to secure 4 proper treatment for his mother. This reply in the show- cause notice is in direct contrast to the certificate produced by the petitioner wherein it is stated that the petitioner was on bed rest. This certificate in no way supports the stand taken by the petitioner in the show-cause notice. It appears that this certificate has been belatedly procured by the petitioner. As stated earlier, in the show-cause notice also the petitioner has stated that he has not produced the medical certificate of his mother but he will produce the same later on. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner has not produced any medical certificate pertaining to illness of his mother. 6] Looking to all these facts, we find no error in the action of the authorities in imposing prison punishment of cutting of remission of 5 days for each day of overstay. Hence, the Criminal Writ Petition is rejected. Judge Judge J.