Partly allowed

Mithilesh Ramprasad Gupta v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Aug 2008WP/1177/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the confiscation of the petitioner's Rs. 5,000 surety amount due to his financial hardship and surrender, ordering its refund. The court further standardized the remission reduction rate to two days per day of overstay instead of discretionary rates.

What did the court decide?

Order of confiscation of Rs. 5,000 set aside and refunded; remission reduction fixed at two days per day of overstay.

Mithilesh Ramprasad Gupta Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1177 OF 2008

¶5

Mithilesh R. Gupta. Versus	...	.....	Petitioner.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.	...	.....	Respondents.

¶6

None for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mrs. S. D. Shinde, APP, for the State.

¶8

CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and A. A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ.

¶9

DATED : 5TH AUGUST, 2008.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

The petitioner is aggrieved of an order of punishment for over-staying furlough period. He over-stayed by 16 days and he has been punished with reduction in remission at the rate of 3 days per day. He has also been fined with confiscation of deposit amount of Rs.5,000/-.

¶12

Earlier in another case also we have observed that the respondents have power to reduce the remission by maximum of 5 days per day of overstay. But there are no guidelines as to at what rate in a particular case the reduction should be ordered. So far the Government has not framed any guidelines and every officer, according to his own discretion, reduces the

¶13

¶14

remission at the rate of 1 day / 2 days / 3 days / 4 days or 5 days, per day of over stay.

¶15

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner surrendered himself and he has given reasons for his over-stay and that he could have very well got an extension had he applied for the same. It appears that the petitioner is a poor man and it is difficult for him to face the confiscation of the surety amount of Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, the order of confiscation of the surety amount of Rs.5,000/- is set aside. The amount be refunded to the petitioner forthwith.

¶16

In these circumstances, after hearing the learned Asstt. Public Prosecutor, we feel that the interest of justice would be met by reducing the remission by 2 days for each day of over-stay. Accordingly, the remission period is reduced by 2 days for each day of the over-stay by the petitioner i.e. 16 x 2 = 32 days.

¶17

With the above observations the writ petition is disposed of.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

(BILAL NAZKI, J.)

¶20

Sd/-

Mithilesh Ramprasad Gupta v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithilesh Ramprasad Gupta v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Somnath P. Harjai Vs the State of Maharashtra

Louiza Francis Coutto @ Tina Coutto Vs Inspector of Police and Anr.

Sharayu Sharad Mayekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt.Shakuntala Bhagwat Kshirsagar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shegufa Adi Haubrich A.K. a Shegufa Adi Irani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramsubhash Sakkhu Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra