1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No.226/2008 [Shankar Ukandrao Marbate .vrs. The State of Maharashtra and others] ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. K.S. Narwade, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Y.B. Mandpe, APP for the respondents. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE AND B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ DATED : JULY 1, 2008 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the respondents/State. 2. The petitioner is a life convict. He was released on furlough leave for two weeks on 2.3.2005. He was to surrender on 17.3.2005. However, he did not surrender and was required to be arrested and brought to jail on 6.8.2005. Thus, the petitioner overstayed for 143 days. By order dated 26.6.2006 the Superintendent of Nagpur Central Prison proposed the punishment of cut in remission by 1 x 5 i.e. 143 days x 5 = 715 days. Since that much remission was not in balance in his 2 account, his name was removed from the remission register for a period of five years. The proposed punishment was approved by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons as well as Sessions Judge. The petitioner has challenged the said order. 3. It seems that on 8.8.2005 notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause for overstaying for 143 days. On 25.4.2006 the petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice stating therein that the marriage of his younger brother was to be solemnized on 2.5.2005, as the petitioner was required to make preparation for the marriage of his brother, he could not surrender on due date. Along with his explanation, he had also produced a copy of invitation card. 4. It may be noted that the furlough leave of the petitioner had expired on 17.3.2005. The marriage of his brother was to be solemnized on 2.5.2005. As such, there was enough time for the petitioner to surrender on due date. After surrendering he could have applied for parole for the marriage of his brother. It may further be seen that the marriage of the brother of the petitioner must have been solemnized on 2.5.2005. But even after it the petitioner did not surrender and was required to be arrested on 6.8.2005. Thus, the reason put-forth by the petitioner for overstaying was not proper. In our view, the 3 Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur has considered the reason put-forth by the petitioner and was justified in imposing punishment of cut in remission by 1 x 5 i.e. 143 days x 5 = 715 days. Thus, the impugned order calls for no interference. Hence, the petition is dismissed. The fees of the counsel appointed for the petitioner are quantified at Rs.750/-. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande