hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1402 OF 2010 Arun Damodar Khade ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. A.G. Toraskar for Petitioner. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, A.P.P. for State. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED: 17TH AUGUST, 2010 P. C.: We have heard Mr. Toraskar and perused the petition sent through Jail. With the extended leave the Petitioner ought to have surrendered to the Jail on 10.11.2007 and he surrendered on that date late by more than 5.1/2 hrs. On that count he has been punished by reduction of two days remission as per the order dated 14.7.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kolhapur. The petitioner contends that reporting late by 5.1/2 hrs. has been treated as one full day and he has been wrongly punished by reduction of two days remission. Admittedly the petitioner reported late and it would be for the jail authorities to consider on the quantum of punishment for such jail offences. Though on the face of it, two days remission deduction appears to be harsh for reporting late by 5.1/2 hrs, the Jail discipline warrants that such offences are dealt with in keeping in mind the discipline. The deduction of 1 or two days should not make much of difference when it comes to the counting of total period of sentence for being released from Jail. We therefore, find no case made out to show indulgence under Article 226 of the Constitution. Hence, the petition is rejected. (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE,J.)