1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 596 OF 2008 Ashok Baloba Dombe .....Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ......Respondents Mr.N.N.Gavankar i/by.Mr.Arfan Saif, adv.for petitioner. Mrs.V.R.Bhonsale, APP for state, present. Coram : Smt. Ranjana Desai, & Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, JJ. Dated: 15 th July, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J) : . Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties taken up for hearing forthwith. 1. The petitioner was convicted by TADA Special court in TADA Special Case No.9 of 1991 on 29th October, 1993 and sentenced under Section 302 of IPC alongwith section 3 of Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) to suffer imprisonment for life. Criminal Appeal preferred by the petitioner and his co-accused is dismissed. The petitioner is at present undergoing imprisonment at Swatantrapur Open 2 Prison, Sangli. 2. It appears that the petitioner was released on furlough on 9th of May, 20000. The petitioner surrendered late by 63 days. On 17th July, 2001 the petitioner was again released on parole. He surrendered late by 43 days. Respondent No.2, that is, the Liason Officer, Swatantrapur Open Colony, Sangli has imposed maximum punishment of 1:5 days of forfeiture of remission against the petitioners' over-stay of 63 and 43 days. The petitioner is aggrieved by this action and has approached this court. The petitioner has prayed that the punishment of forfeiture of 315 and 215 days of ordinary remission be quashed and appropriate direction be issued reducing the 1:5 days proportion of forfeiture of remission to some other reasonable proportion. 3. We have heard Mr.Gavankar, learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioners' over stay was due to circumstances beyond his control. When he surrendered late by 63 days, his mother had suffered a paralytic attack and when on the second occasion he surrendered late by 43 days, his newborn son and uncle had expired. He submitted that therefore the prison authorities should have adopted a 3 kind approach. Learned counsel relied upon the order of this court in Pravin Sudam Waghmare Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. passed in Cri.W.P.No,942 of 2006 dated 25 th April, 2006 and in Dastagir Karamat Khan @ Dastu Vs. The State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors. passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1869 of 2007 dated 19 th October, 2007. Mr.Gavankar, also made a grievance that the petitioner was never given copies of the orders awarding punishment of forfeiture of 315 & 215 days of ordinary remission. 4. We have also heard learned AGP. She has drawn our attention to the affidavit of Mr.Machindra Narayan Kamble, Superintendent of Swatantrapur Open Prison, Sangli. Learned APP submitted that the petitioner had overstayed even earlier. In the circumstances, no interference is necessary with the impugned action. 5. Affidavit of Machindra Kamble indicates that the petitioner was to be released on 3rd June 2008, however since the petitioner had overstayed for 63 and 43 days, his ordinary remission in the year 2001 has been forfeited to the extent of 315 and 215 days. It is submitted that on both the occasions, notice was given to the petitioner. He replied to the notice, 4 thereafter the papers were placed before the District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur and the order of forfeiting the remission was approved by the District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur. It is stated that therefore, there is no illegality committed while forfeiting the ordinary remissions. It is also stated in the affidavit, that on 24th June, 2006 the petitioner was transferred to Swatantrapur Open Prison, Sangli and presently he is staying there. 6. Though the respondents had issued notice to the petitioner and after passing the orders of forfeiture of remissions, the papers were placed before the District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur who approved the said orders, admittedly the orders have not been served on the petitioner. In our opinion, orders forfeiting remissions must be served on the prisoners. We hope and trust that in future such orders will be served on the prisoners. 7. So far as, the request of the petitioner is concerned, we feel that it deserves to be granted. On both the occasions, the petitioner was prevented from surrendering to the prison, because of certain unforeseen circumstances. Therefore, a little sympathetic view needs to be taken of 5 his over stay. Besides the fact that he was transferred to Swatantrapur Open Prison indicates that his conduct in the jail is satisfactory. We are also informed that the petitioner has recently lost his wife in a road accident. We have perused the judgments which are cited before us. In the facts of those cases, the forfeiture imposed by following 1:5 ratio was directed to be reduced by following 1:2 ratio. We feel that the facts of the present case warrant a similar order. Hence, the following order : O R D E R (i)The order reducing the remission by following 1: 5 days proportion is set aside and is substituted by 1:2 proportion. Needless to say, that in view of this order the forfeiture of remission will be of 212 days instead of 530 days. (ii) The prison authorities to take action accordingly. (iii) The Writ Petition is disposed off. . All concerned to act on authenticated copy of this order. (Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J) (Smt.Ranjana Desai, J)