KASHINATH LAXMAN INGLEY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE, returnable forthwith. By consent of parties heard forthwith.

(2.) HEARD Shri. N. S. Bhat, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. B. H. Dhangre, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

(3.) THE learned A. P. P. , on the other hand, contended that the petitioner was required to surrender before expiration of furlough leave. However, the petitioner did not bother to surrender within the stipulated period and surrendered late by 50 days. It is contended that under Statutory Rules made by the Inspector General of Prisons, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section11 of the Prisons Act, 1894 vide Notification No. MJM 1561/39466 dated-2nd July,1964, the authorities under sub clause (a) of Rule 2 of the said Notification are entitled to impose cut of 5 days' remission for each day of overstay. It is, further contended that though the application/representation was submitted by the petitioner for extension of furlough leave, the same was rejected. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order passed by the authorities is sustainable in law.