RAMRAO NARESH CHARANSINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of Mr. Kukde, Adv. for the Petitioner (appointed) and Mr.Jichkar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondents.

(2.) In the present case, the order dt. 20.1.2004 passed by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Amravati as well as the order dt.13.2.2004 passed by the District Judge, Amravati confirming the said order have been challenged. Mr.Kukde, learned counsel has contended that the petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is contended that the competent Authority granted furlough leave to the petitioner on 1.8.2002 for a period of 15 days. It is further contended that, while the petitioner was on furlough leave, his elder brother had expired and his old mother was ailing. Since there was no other male member in the family to take care of the children of the deceased brother and to look after the ailing mother, the petitioner submitted application for extension of furlough leave. However, the competent Authority did not communicate to the petitioner whether the request made by the petitioner for grant of extension of furlough leave was accepted or rejected.

(3.) Mr. Kukde, learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner surrendered before the Prison Authorities late by 315 days and therefore, the competent Authority issued show cause notice to the petitioner as to why penalty should not be imposed on him under the provisions of the Prisons Act, 1994 read with the Statutory Rules. It is contended that the petitioner submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice wherein the petitioner has given reason that he surrendered late due to death of his elder brother and ill-ness of his mother. However, the competent Authority without application of mind awarded maximum punishment i.e. cut of five days' remission for each day of over-stay, as stipulated in Section 48A of the Prisons Act read with the Statutory Rules i.e. Notification dated 2nd July, 1964. It is further contended that the competent Authority, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, ought not to have imposed the maximum punishment prescribed and should have taken lenient view, particularly because of the reasons mentioned by the petitioner in the reply to the show cause notice. It is contended that the order passed by the competent Authority as well as confirmed by the District Judge suffers from non application of mind and therefore, cannot be sustained in law. In order to substantiate the contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2002 (2) Mh.L.J. 203, Mohan Suryabhan Chandan .vs. State of Maharashtra and Others.