MOHAN SURYABHAN CHANDAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT. With the consent of learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned A. P. P. heard forthwith.

(2.) THE petitioner was released on parole under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, for a period of 15 days w. e. f. 14-1-1998. The parole was granted on the ground of illness of his mother. Within 3 days of his release on parole, the petitioner moved an application for extension of parole on the ground of illness of his mother for 75 days. This application was finally rejected on 16-4-1999. However, since no order had been received by the petitioner for extension of parole, it was his duty to have reported back after completion of 15 days of parole since by merely filing an application for extension of parole, the period of parole does not automatically stands extended. The petitioner reported back after overstay of 149 days. A show cause notice was given to the petitioner by the Jail authorities. The explanation given by the petitioner in pursuance of the show cause notice was that he was himself ill. Considering this explanation, penalty of forfeiture of remission of 745 days was ordered, after the judicial appraisal by the District and Sessions Judge, Amravati. The petitioner had remission of 405 days at his credit which was forfeited and it was ordered that he shall not earn any remission during the period of 3 years.

(3.) THIS order is subject matter of challenge in this petition. The learned Advocate for the petitioner urged before me that the penalty imposed is too harsh, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had, infact, applied for extension and no reply was sent to him though the same was ultimately rejected on 16-4-1999 and that the petitioner was sick during that period as a result of which he could not report back. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (Navneet v. State of Maharashtra and another), reported in 2000 S. C. C. (Cri.) 88.