IMRAN KHAN SARDAR KHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Choube, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Tripathi, APP for the respondents. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally. The petitioner was released on parole on 29-10-2010, however, he did not return back to the prison in time. There is overstay of 45 days on his part. The grievance of the petitioner is that on account of this overstay, remission of 4 days has been cut for each day of overstay. In addition thereto he is not appointed as Night Watchman. Hence, he has claimed that it is a case of double jeopardy.

(2.) The petitioner claims that for this act of overstay he cannot be punished twice for the same offence i.e. for 45 days of his overstay 180 days remission has been deducted and in addition he has not been appointed to the post of Night Watchman.

(3.) From the perusal of the record pertaining to the petitioner, it is noticed that the petitioner was released on 6-4-2010 on furlough for two weeks which was extended by another two weeks. He failed to surrender in time and was late by 3 days. Thereafter, the petitioner was released on parole on 29-10-2010 for 30 days. He was further granted extension of 30 days, however, the petitioner did not surrender in time and was late by 45 days.