1. Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner - convict to quash and set aside the impugned order dtd.30/3/2011 passed by the Administrative Officer of Inspector General of Police, State of Gujarat forfeiting remission of 192 days, for 96 unauthorized absence. 2.00. Mr.Baghel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that due to family circumstances the petitioner could not surrender before the jail authority in time and therefore the impugned order forfeiting remission of 192 days is too harsh.
3.00. Mr.Baghel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Navneet Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in (2000) 10 SCC 326.
4.00. Mr.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Navneet (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, as in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court the prisoner himself had surrendered before the jail authority belatedly. However, in the present case the petitioner - accused has not surrendered voluntarily before the jail authority but the petitioner - prisoner came to be arrested by the police. Therefore, there is distinction between the prisoner who surrendered himself voluntarily before the jail authority, may be belatedly and the prisoner who has been arrested. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the authority has committed any error and/or illegality in imposing punishment of remission of 2 days cut-off for each unauthorized absence. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present petition.
5.00. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length.
6.00. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was released on Parole for 9 days, however on completion of 9 days Parole, he did not surrender before the jail authority and absconded and thereafter he came to be arrested by the police after 96 days' unauthorized absence and absconding. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the authority has committed any error and/or illegality in forfeiting remission of 192 days for 96 unauthorized absence, i.e. remission of 2 days cut-off for each unauthorized absence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7.00. So far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Navneet (supra)would not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, as in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court the prisoner had surrendered voluntarily, though belatedly and in the present case, the petitioner has not surrendered voluntarily but he was arrested by the police.
8.00. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, there is no substance in the present petition and it deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.
rafik Sd/-
[M.R. SHAH, J.]