1 3.wp.106-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.106 OF 2011 Vijay Pandurang Waghmare. ..Petitioner. Vs. Dy.Inspector General of Prison and another. ..Respondents. .......... Mr.Vaibhav A. Sugdare, Advocate appointed as amicus curiae for the Petitioner. Ms.M.H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for the State. .......... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 2nd FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. 1. This Petition is received from jail. The petition challenges the decision of the Appropriate Authority in imposing punishment against the Petitioner for over­staying the furlough leave period. The Appropriate Authority has imposed punishment of one day for every day of overstayed period during the furlough leave. According to the Petitioner, the fact that the Petitioner had overstayed furlough leave period for about four days under compelling circumstances has not been considered by the Appropriate Authority at all. Further, the Authority has also not taken into account the submission of the Petitioner that the Petitioner has already suffered on account of PPD 2 3.wp.106-11 forfeiture of security amount for the same prison offence. 2. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand contended that the District Judge in his order dated 24.5.2010 has considered the relevant aspects before imposing punishment for overstaying the furlough leave period. 3. On perusal of the order of the District Judge, it is noticed that it merely refers to the contention of the Petitioner that the Petitioner could not return back to the jail within the stipulated time as his son was serious and was required to be looked after by providing medical aid. No other aspect has been mentioned in the said decision. As aforesaid, the submission of the Petitioner that the Petitioner was required to suffer punishment of forfeiture of security deposit amount for the same prison offence has not been adverted to at all. Further, no enquiry has been made as to whether cause mentioned by the Petitioner was genuine. Petitioner was relying on the medical certificate issued by Sanjeevani Hospital. Suffice it to observe that the decision of the District Judge dated 24.5.2010 which is basis of imposing punishment on the Petitioner does not take into account all aspects of the matter and fails to do proper analysis of the material relied by the Petitioner. 4. In the circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the said order of the District Judge dated 24.5.2010 and instead relegate the 3 3.wp.106-11 Petitioner before the District Judge for reconsideration of his proposal on its own merits and in accordance with law. The District Judge shall decide the claim of the Petitioner keeping in mind all the submissions of the Petitioner and pass appropriate order as may be advised within six weeks from today. All questions are left open. 5. There are other reliefs claimed in this Petition. However, the same cannot be entertained as it is not open to the Court to direct the State to provide for period more than 30 days, which is a Legislative function. 6. Petition is disposed of accordingly. 7. Copy of the order be forwarded to the Petitioner who is in jail jail forthwith. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)