1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.616/2009 Naresh Ramchandra Sonekar ..Vrs.. The State of Maharashtra, thr. Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Shri A.G.Joshi,Adocate, for appellant (appointed) Shri.T.A.Mirza, A.P.P. for respondent CORAM : MRS. V.K.TAHILRAMANI & M.L.TAHALIYANI, JJ DATE : 26.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner being aggrieved by the communication dated 28.10.2009 and 16.11.2009 received by him in relation to his delay of 96 days in reporting back to prison has preferred this petition. The petitioner was released on parole in the year 2009. Thereafter he was granted extension of the parole period by 60 days. Thus, he had to surrender on 24.4.2009 however , he did not return back to prison in time and he absconded. 2 Ultimately he was arrested by the police and brought back to prison. Thus there was overstay of 96 days. In view of the overstay, these two communications w`ere issued, whereby he was informed that his remission would be cut by five years and in view of the government Circular dated 22.5.2009 he would be barred from being granted parole for five years. This circular states that any prisoner who has overstayed parole for more than 90 days, shall not be granted parole for the next five years. The main grievance of the petitioner is that as per the Circular dated 22/5/2009 he would not be entitled for grant of parole for a period of 5 years hence, he has also prayed that the circular be quashed. However the said circular has been modified and the stipulation of 5 years of stoppage of parole leave in case of those prisoners who have overstayed parole for more than 90 days has been deleted. Thus this grievance does not survive as now the bar has been removed and the petitioner in case of any contingency can be released on parole as prayed by him. 3 Thereafter the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the grievance of the petitioner is also that he is removed from the remission register for 5 years. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has overstayed for a period of 96 days. In case of overstay the prison punishment provided is that remission is cut for each day of overstay. Remission is cut in the ratio of 1 : 1 to 1 : 5 i.e. for each day of overstay remission in the range of 1 day to 5 days is cut. As the period of overstay in the case of the petitioner is large it would call for higher punishment. In addition, it is noticed that the petitioner did not surrender on his own but he had to be arrested by police and brought back to prison. This would call for an even higher punishment. Thus, the facts and circumstances of this case would call for cutting of remission of 5 days for each day of overstay, i.e. in the case of the petitioner 480 days remission is liable to be cut. By removing the petitioner from the remission system for five years it means that 430 days of remission has been cut which is lesser than 480 days. 4 If the petitioner had any difficulty, he should have informed the prison authorities about the same and informed them of his probable date of surrendering. It is noticed that the petitioner has sent this letter petition through jail . He has also preferred another letter petition through jail which is numbered as Criminal Writ Petition No 199/3022. We fail to understand what prevented the petitioner from sending a post card to the jail authorities, informing them about his difficulty, if any and probable date of surrendering. Both the above mentioned petitions are well drafted. The contents shows that the petitioner is well aware of his rights but he has been extremely negligent and callous in his duty i.e. of reporting back to the prison in time. The rules relating to the remission system as provided under the Maharashtra Prison Manual provides for four categories of prisoners;(a) Convicts overseers., (b) Night Watchmen,(c) Other Prisoners, and (d) Prisoners working on conservancy jobs. Admittedly, the petitioner does not fall in category of (a) (b) and (d). Hence, he will fall in category (c) which is Other Prisoners. The scale of 5 remission provided to ‘Other prisoners’ is as under- (i) Three days per month, for good behaviour, discipline and participation in the various institutional activities, such as physical training, educational programmes and the like; and (ii) Four days per month, for performing the allotted work in accordance with the prescribed standards. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as the conduct of the petitioner is good in prison and he is working in accordance with the prescribed standards, he is entitled to seven days remission in a month. Even assuming that the petitioner is entitled to 7 days of remission in a month, it is noticed that the petitioner on account of his overstay had to forfeit remission of 480 days i.e. in the ratio of 1 : 5. If it is calculated at the rate of seven days a month as per the scale of remission which according to the learned Advocate for the 6 petitioner is applicable to him, the petitioner would have to be removed from the remission system for 5 years and four months. By the above mentioned calculations in the first year the petitioner would get remission of 84 days by this calculations. In the second year the remission accumulated to his credit would be 168 days, in the third year the remission accumulated would be 262 days, in the fourth year the remission accumulated would be 346 days and in the fifth year remission accumulated to the credit of the petitioner would be 430 days. We have already observed that in the fact and circumstances of this case the petitioner would be liable to forfeit remission of 480 days. Therefore in a period of 5 years in fact the petitioner would have only accumulated remission of 430 days, whereas he has to forfeit remission of 480 days. To accumulate 480 days,as remission, he would have to be removed from the remission system for 5 years four months. In fact in the case of the petitioner, a lenient view is taken by the authorities of removing him from remission register for five years, instead of 5 years 7 and 4 months. Thus we see no error in the order passed by the authority removing the petitioner from the remission system for 5 years. Rule is discharged. JUDGE JUDGE scd