1 wp-877-10.sxw dgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 877 OF 2010 Appasaheb L. Lokhande .... Petitioner vs The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Mrs. Sonia Miskin for the petitioner. Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, APP for the State. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 10th August, 2010 P.C.: Heard. 2 The petitioner has been punished for a prison offence inasmuch as his remissions have been deducted for 22 days as he had surrendered late by 11 days after he was released on furlough leave, the said order was submitted for approval to the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Kolhapur and by his order dated 26.03.2009, the learned Judge has modified the punishment. As per the order passed by the Jail Authorities, the deduction in remissions was two days for each day of late reporting and the same has been reviewed by the learned Sessions Judge and the deduction is of one day for each day of late reporting. Thus, the petitioner has lost 11 days of remissions. As per Rule 2 of Maharashtra Prison 2 wp-877-10.sxw Rules, 1959 (Chapter XXVII ) loss of remission is of 2 days for each day of reporting and it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the petitioner’s case and more particularly the fact that he reported on his own after 11 days. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also taken into consideration the petitioner’s contention that he stayed beyond the sentence period for bonafide reasons and that he had also submitted in his application for extension of furlough leave. The view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is a possible view and we do not find any error therein so as to cause interference under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution. 3 Hence, the petition is rejected. The amount, if any, deposited by way of security, be refunded to the relatives or sureties. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ( B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)