1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.110/2010 (Vijay Ramnath Yadav .vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. S.M. Ghodeswar, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. T.A. Mirza, APP for respondent. .......... CORAM : A.P.LAVANDE & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : JUNE 16, 2010 Heard. By the present petition, the petitioner convicted for commission of offence of murder by Sessions Court at Amravati and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment by judgment dated 23.2.1990 and undergoing the same at Amravati Prison has sought for quashing of punishment awarded by Jail Authorities on various occasions. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that by now the petitioner has undergone the imprisonment for a period of 17 years. It is urged that from time to time as per the rules the petitioner was released on furlough and parole by jail authorities. However, due to adverse financial conditions and difficulties faced by his family members , he was not 2 able to return to the Prison on the date fixed and his return was delayed. The petitioner has explained his difficulties in a reply given to the show cause notice issued by the Prison Authorities regarding the delay occurred. However, Authorities without taking into consideration the same, imposed punishment and the same had deprived him the remission. The learned counsel urged that the petitioner was only earning member in his family which was facing adverse financial condition. He was not having support from anybody due to having effected inter-caste marriage. It was urged that due to the said reason had resulted in petitioner returning late to the Prison. It was urged that having regard to the same and there being no other reason like misuse of liberty behind returning late to the Prison, the prayers in the petition be allowed. The learned APP has submitted that there are no merits in the petition and the conduct of the petitioner clearly reveals that he is persistent defaulter in returning late to the Prison. It was urged that on the first occasion of granting 7 days parole, the petitioner was brought back to the Prison by arresting after about 548 days after the date fixed for return; on second occasion of granting 2 weeks furlough leave, he was late by 28 days after the date fixed for return; on third occasion of granting 5 days furlough leave , he was late by 16 days while on last occasion of granting 2 weeks furlough leave, he was late by 612 days and on all the said three occasions the petitioner was required to be brought back by arresting him by Police . It was urged that thus he has avoided to remain in jail for a period of 3 1204 days. It was urged that on every occasion proper procedure was followed by the Prison authorities while imposing punishment. It was thus urged that there are no merits in the petition for showing leniency for such a person who has persistently misused the concession duly given to him in accordance with the rules. Having regard to the aforesaid facets pointed out by the learned APP and so also the documents annexed with the reply supporting the same, we find no merits in the petition as the same clearly reveals petitioner having misused the order passed in his favour by authorities and himself being punished by following the proper procedure prescribed under the rules. In view of the same, we dismiss the petition. The fees of Mr. S.M. Ghodeswar, Advocate appointed to appear on behalf of the petitioner, are quantified at Rs.750/-. JUDGE JUDGE halwai