1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No. 221/2011 Ramrao @ Naresh Charansingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Home Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 and another. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mr. Nitesh Samundre, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. T.A.Mirza, APP for the respondents. CORAM : MRS. V.K.TAHILRAMANI & M.L.TAHALIYANI, JJ DATE : 03.05.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondents. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he has completed 14 years of actual imprisonment. Hence, as per the Guidelines issued by the Government under '14 Year Rule' of prisoners undergoing life sentence, he is entitled to be released. 3. The learned APP states that the case of the petitioner has been considered under the 14 year Rule and he has been placed under category 1(d). Category 1 (d) provides for release of prisoner after completing 2` 26 years of imprisonment including remissions. It may be noted that the petitioner had earlier preferred Criminal Writ Petition No. 455/2010 raising a grievance that he had not been placed under the proper category. This court while disposing of the said petition by order dated 14th October, 2010 observed that the categorization has been rightly done. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has now completed 26 years of actual imprisonment, hence, the petitioner is entitled to be released. As far as this aspect is concerned, affidavit filed by the State shows that with remissions the petitioner as on 23.4.2011 has completed 17 years 8 months and 5 days actual imprisonment. Affidavit further shows that there is hardly any remission to the credit of the petitioner. This is on account of the fact that on four occasions when the petitioner was released on parole or furlough there was overstay on his part. Hence, remissions have been cut as envisaged under Chapter XXXVIII Rule 23 of the Maharashtra Prison Manual, 1974. 5. The details of overstay and forfeiture of remission are as follows:- a) On 11th March, 2000 the petitioner was released on furlough leave for a period of two weeks, there was 3` overstay of four days. Hence, remission in the ratio of 1:5 was cut. The learned Sessions Judge, Nasik by order dated 29.5.2000 approved the punishment awarded by the Superintendent of Prison. b) On 30.6.2001 when the petitioner was released on parole leave for a period of 30 days, there was overstay on his part of 31 days. Hence, remission was cut in the ratio of 1:5 i.e. 155 days remission was cut. The learned Sessions Judge, Nasik by order dated 28th September, 2001 approved the punishment. c) Thereafter, on 1.8.2002 when the petitioner was released on furlough leave for a period of two weeks, the petitioner did not surrender in time. The petitioner surrendered on 27th June, 2003 ie. after a overstay of 315 days. At that time remission of the petitioner was forfeited in the ratio of 1:5. This punishment was approved by the District and Sessions Judge, Amravati by order dated 13.2.2004. However, the petitioner had only 519 days remission in his account, hence the said remission was forfeited and the name of the petitioner came to be removed from the remission register till he accumulated the remaining period which was forfeited. d) Thereafter, on 17.12.2004 the petitioner was released on furlough leave for a period of 2 weeks, he 4` did not surrender in time. He was arrested and brought back to the prison on 5th May, 2005. On this occasion the petitioner was absconding for 124 days. However, this time there was no remission left to his credit, hence, no remission was forfeited. 6. All the remissions have been cut after following the procedure, including issue of show cause notice to the petitioner and after considering his reply. It has also been approved by the Sessions Court. Looking to the above facts, it is found that there is hardly any remission to the credit of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner on completing 26 years of imprisonment with remissions would be released as per the category 1(d). As per the affidavit filed by the Superintendent, Amravati Central Prison, if the behaviour of the petitioner in the prison is good and there is no over stay, the probable date of the release of the petitioner would be 7th August, 2014. Thus, no case is made out for interference. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted at this stage that he wishes to study the matter to see if the remissions have been properly cut and also if any cut in remissions was at all called for. We are afraid that we cannot consider this belated request. The last cut in remission was approved by the learned Sessions Judge in February, 2004. The cut in 5` remission were imposed after following due procedure. The petitioner has made no efforts to challenge the forfeiture of remission for more than seven years. Thus, at this belated stage, on the ground of inordinate delay and laches this plea cannot be entertained. Petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE patle