1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRI. WRIT PETITION NO.78 OF 2011 (MOHAN MAHAVEERPRASAD KAITHWAS..VS.. STATE OF MAH. & OTH.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ku. Sulbha B. Saikhede, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. T.A. Mirza, A.P.P. for Respondents No.1 to 3. CORAM : MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI AND M.L.TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATE : APRIL 11, 2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State. The petitioner has preferred this petition being aggrieved by the prison punishment imposed on the petitioner on two occasions when he had overstayed. The record pertaining to the petitioner reveals that on the first occasion when he was granted furlough he overstayed by one day, hence, prison punishment was imposed on him by cutting his remission of one day for one day’s overstay i.e. 1:1. The petitioner is not aggrieved by this punishment. Thereafter the petitioner was released on furlough. However, he overstayed by 83 days, hence, on this occasion the prison punishment of cutting his remission for five days for each day’s overstay was imposed on him. The petitioner has prayed that instead of cutting of remission of 5 days for each day’s overstay prison punishment be imposed on him of cutting 2 days remission for each day of overstay i.e. 1 : 2. 2 On the third occasion the petitioner was released on furlough, he did not surrender in time and he was arrested by the police and brought back to the prison. On this occasion the period of his overstay was 77 days. On account of the said overstay the prison punishment was imposed of withdrawal of canteen facility for three months. As far as cutting of remission of 1 : 5 days is concerned the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that father of the petitioner is about 90 years of age and on account of ill-health of the father the petitioner was late in surrendering. Looking to the reason for overstay and looking to the fact that the petitioner surrendered back to prison on his own, we are inclined to reduce the punishment in the ratio 1 : 3 in place of 1 : 5, i.e. for each day’s overstay 3 days of remission be cut. However, as far as last occasion is concerned, when the petitioner overstayed, his canteen facility was stopped. Rule 2(b) of the Statutory Rules made by the Inspector General of Prisons in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Prisons Act, 1894, provides stoppage of canteen concession for a period of not less than one month, but not more than three months. It is seen that, despite being given a chance, the petitioner has not improved. On the third occasion when he was released on furlough he had to be arrested and brought back to the prison. Hence, we cannot find any fault for imposing the said prison punishment on the petitioner. Thus, as far as punishment of cutting canteen facility is concerned, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. 3 The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. JUDGE JUDGE RR..