Bombay High Court
Nitin Laxman Pansare vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 January, 2018
jdk 1 14.crwp.5305.17.j.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5305 OF 2017
Nitin Laxman Pansare ]
Age 33 years, ]
C-588, Yerawada Open Prison ]
Pune ].. Petitioner
Vs.
(1) The State of Maharashtra ]
(2) The Superintendent, ]
Yerawada Central Prison, Pune-6 ].. Respondents
....
Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate appointed for Petitioner
Mrs. G.P.Mulekar A.P.P. for the State
....
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI ACTING C.J.
AND M.S.KARNIK, J.
DATED : JANUARY 24, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, ACJ.]:
1 Heard both sides.
2 The petitioner was released on furlough on 14.8.2004
for a period of 14 days. As the petitioner did not report back to
the prison in time and there was delay of 195 days, remission
which was to his credit of 98 days was cut. In addition, he was
removed from the remission system for five years. Being
aggrieved by this punishment, the petitioner has preferred the
present petition.
1 of 3
jdk 2 14.crwp.5305.17.j.doc
3 Learned A.P.P. pointed out that at that time, the
maximum punishment which could be imposed on the
petitioner, was cutting of remission of five days for each day of
overstay. Learned A.P.P. pointed out that if the maximum
punishment of cutting of remission of 5 days for each day of
overstay was imposed, it comes to 975 days, however, the
petitioner had only 98 days of remission to his credit, which was
cut. In addition, he was removed for five years from the
remission system. She submitted that for each year, a prisoner
accumulates about 114 days of remission, hence, for the period
of five years, the petitioner would get about 570 days of
remission, hence, as the petitioner was removed from the
remission system for five years, it would amount to cutting of
570 days plus in addition, earlier amount of remission to his
credit of 98 days was cut, which comes to 668 days as against
975 days which would have been cut if remission of five days for
each day of overstay, was imposed. She further pointed out
that the petitioner did not surrender on his own to the prison but
he was arrested and brought back to the prison on 11.3.2005.
However, if we peruse the conduct of the petitioner in the last
2 of 3
jdk 3 14.crwp.5305.17.j.doc
seven years, it is seen that in the year 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014,
2015, 2016 and 2017 the petitioner was released on furlough
and on all occasions, he has reported back to the prison on the
due dates on his own. The petitioner was also released on
parole in the year 2012, 2014 and 2016 and on all the three
occasions, he reported back on the due dates on his own to the
prison. The conduct of the petitioner in the prison is found
satisfactory and in fact, so much so, he has been selected for
open prison.
4 Looking to the above facts and on humanitarian
ground, we are inclined to reduce the punishment imposed on
the petitioner of cutting of remission. Accordingly, the
punishment is reduced to cutting of remission of two days for
each day of overstay. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
Petition is allowed.
5 Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who
is in Yerawada Open Prison, Pune.
M.S.KARNIK, J. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
kandarkar
3 of 3
