Shriram Uddhav Murari vs State Of Maharashtra
2003 Latest Caselaw 812 Bom

JUDGMENT

R.K. Batta, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. In this petition, the petitioner's grievance is that the remission to the petitioner has been permanently withdrawn.

3. Learned A.P.P. urged before us that the petitioner was released on furlough for 15 days but he did not report on the due date and was arrested only after 674 days. The petitioner has further stated that he did not report back to the jail authorities on completion of furlough on account of the fact that his daughter aged about four years was missing and he was making efforts to trace her. Learned A. P. P. has filed additional reply stating that show cause notice was served on the petitioner and in reply to show cause, on 8-6-1993 the petitioner had nowhere stated that his daughter was missing, but, on the contrary he had stated that he could not surrender because his mother and daughter were ill. He, therefore, contends that in the circumstances, the punishment of withdrawal of remission permanently cannot be faulted with. In our opinion, permanent withdrawal of remission is not justified in the facts and circumstances of this case and as such, the said order is required to be set aside. Nevertheless, the authority shall consider the reply to show cause already filed by the petitioner and take fresh appropriate decision in respect of the punishment to be imposed on the petitioner for reporting late to jail by 674 days. Besides this, no sanction from the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons as required under Rule 23 of Chapter XXXVIII of Maharashtra Prison Manual, has been obtained. In this respect, two Division Bench judgments of this Court in Namdeo Bapuso Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition No. 877 of 1988) and Abhay Shende v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition No. 107 of 1997) after taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, have observed that approval of punishment has to be obtained from the Inspector General of Prisons and appraisal of the District Judge is no substitute for the same. On this count also, the punishment of withdrawal of permanent remission is required to be set aside.

4. After hearing afresh, if the authorities decide to impose punishment on the petitioner for late reporting by 674 days after the furlough period was over, the approval for such punishment be obtained from Deputy Inspector General of Prisons who is now competent authority for the same in accordance with the aforesaid rules as also appraisal from the District Judge in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (supra).

5. The Writ Petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute.