Bombay High Court
Pintu @ Laxman Sarjerao Londhe vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 September, 2016
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
5a. cri wp 2298-15.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2298 OF 2015
Pintu @ Laxman Sarjerao Londhe .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
...................
Appearances
Ms. Rohini Dandekar Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
Mr. Arfan Sait ig APP for the State
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 20, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1. Heard both sides.
2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner preferred an application for furlough.
The said application was granted and the petitioner was
released on furlough on 2.9.2007 for a period of 14 days.
The said period was extended by another 14 days, however,
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4
5a. cri wp 2298-15.doc
the petitioner did not report back to the prison in time.
Ultimately, the petitioner had to be traced and arrested by
the police and brought back to the prison on 8.2.2009.
Thus, there was overstay of 496 days on the part of the
petitioner.
4. As the petitioner had overstayed for 496 days, prison
punishment was imposed on him of cutting of remission of 5
days for each day of overstay. Normally, in case of large
period of overstay and specially where the prisoner is
arrested and brought back to prison, punishment is imposed
of cutting of 5 days remission for each day of overstay which
has been done in the present case by order dated
26.12.2009. Copy of the said order is taken on record and
marked "X" for identification. The petitioner had overstayed
for 496 days. If 5 days of remission was cut off for each day
of overstay, then for 146 days of overstay, 2480 days of
remission would be cut. The petitioner was convicted by
judgment and order dated 2.5.2006 in Sessions Case No. 2 of
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4
5a. cri wp 2298-15.doc
2004 by the learned Sessions Judge, Baramati, Pune. When
the petitioner was released on furlough, he had to his credit
only 135 days of remission.
5. Section 48A of Chapter 11 of the Prisons Act provides
that if any prisoner fails without sufficient cause to observe
any of the conditions on which furlough or parole was
granted, he shall be deemed to have committed a prison
offfence and prison punishment can be imposed on him after
obtaining explanation. The explanation was sought from the
petitioner and the explanation was found to be
unsatisfactory.
6. Section 48A (3) states that a prisoner who has not
observed the conditions on which parole or furlough was
granted to him, prison punishment of loss of privileges
admissible under the remission of furlough or parole can be
imposed on him. As the petitioner had overstayed for 496
days, prison punishment of cutting of remission of 5 days for
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4
5a. cri wp 2298-15.doc
each day of overstay has been imposed. As and when the
petitioner completes the prison punishment, he would be
readmitted to the remission system. Thus, no case is made
out for interference. Rule is discharged.
7. The order be communicated to the petitioner who is
lodged in Yerwada Central Prison, Pune.
[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4
