1 WP.1618.2010 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1618 OF 2010 Shridhar Krushna Panchal Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents Ms.Ameeta Kuttikrishnan appointed for the petitioner. Mr.D.P.Adsule, APP for the State. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR AND U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATE : 09th September 2010 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. This petition is filed through jail. By this petition the petitioner challenges the punishment imposed for overstaying the furlough leave by 938 days. The argument of the petitioner is that the impugned order does not record any reason whatsoever. In absence of reason, the order cannot be sustained. To buttress this submission reliance is placed on decision of our High Court in case of Danial H. Walcott J. Prisoner at Central Prison, Nagpur Vs. Superintendent, Nagpur Central Prison (1972- Cri.L.J.-673) and Kashinath Laxman Ingley Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2003-Bom.C.R.[Cri]-1387) as well as Mohan Suryabhan Chandan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2001[Supp.2]-Bom.C.R-613). 2 WP.1618.2010 2. We have no difficulty in accepting the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that even if the rules do not oblige the authority to record the reasons for rejecting or not accepting the explanation of the prisoner before imposing punishment for prison offence, it is essential that the authority records reasons for finding the prisoner guilty in the order itself. 3. The question is whether the impugned decision records any reason or not. On plain reading of the language of the impugned decision it is not possible to countenance the grievance of the petitioner. It plainly refers to the fact that the petitioner overstayed the furlough leave period by 938 days and was required to be arrested. It also takes into account the explanation given by the petitioner after the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before imposing the punishment. The authority has considered all aspects of the matter including the explanation given by the petitioner. In other words, the impugned decision refers to the relevant fact that the explanation offered by the petitioner was duly considered and it did not find favour with the authority. It is only thereafter the authority proceeded to impose the punishment for the prison offence as provided by the Rules. 4. The next question is whether the punishment imposed by the authority of removing the name of the petitioner from remission book and forfeiture of earned remission period can be said to be excessive. Considering the fact that the petitioner overstayed the furlough leave for more than 938 days and was eventually arrested by the Police, 3 WP.1618.2010 presupposes that the petitioner has flouted the conditions specified for releasing the petitioner on furlough leave. Moreover, it was not a technical deviation by the petitioner but a case where the petitioner attempted to flee from the ends of justice till he was arrested after lapse of 938 days. In such a situation, the punishment imposed by the authority cannot be said to be excessive, especially when the authority has rejected the explanation given by the petitioner. The punishment imposed is in conformity with the provisions of Rules. Validity of the said Rules is not questioned before us. 5. In these circumstances, the petition must fail and the same is dismissed. 6. The Court expresses word of gratitude for the able assistance given by the Amicus Curiae to the Court. A copy of this order be sent to the petitioner who is in jail. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)