JUDGMENT
M.F. Saldanha, J.
1. This petition has been filed by the next of kin of one Suresh alias Surya Sitaram Pawar who is a convict undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment at the Yeravada Central Prison, Pune. The petitioner has, through this petition, contended that since the prisoner has undergone the full term of sentence, he is entitled to a direction for his immediate release from the prison. It appears that the petitioner had filed an earlier Criminal Writ Petition No. 540 of 1990. However, that Petition came to be withdrawn as the respondents had contended in the course of their reply that the prisoner was not entitled to the benefit of remissions by virtue of an order dated 5th June 1985 that has been passed against him on the ground that he had committed certain prison offences and that consequently he was liable to be retained in the prison for an additional period of two years. The order dated 5th June 1985, which is Annexure ‘E’ to the petition, has also been challenged by the petitioner.
2. Shri Gavankar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has filed a detailed computation and the respondents in their affidavit-in-reply have admitted the correctness of these calculations. The prisoner came to be arrested originally on 12th August 1972. He was convicted on 21st June 1973 and continued to undergo sentence until 30th January 1988. On 30th January 1988 the prisoner escaped from the Jail and it appears that after 19 days the prisoner surrendered. In view of these unusual circumstances, Shri Gavankar has confined the calculations, on the basis of which he has advanced his submissions, to 30th January 1988, i.e., the date when the prisoner escaped from the prison. According to those computations, which are admitted by the authorities, as on 30th January 1988 the prisoner has undergone a total sentence of 14 years, 6 months and 29 days. This included the total remissions that he was eligible to claim, the aggregate of which comes to 9 years, 1 month and 20 days. It is the further submissions of Shri Gavankar that if the Jail authorities has correctly computed the remissions which the prisoner was eligible for, the prisoner had completed the period of 24 years which, according to the respondents, is the period of sentence which he had to undergo, on 30th September 1987. By virtue of this position, admittedly the prisoner ought to have been released by the authorities on 30th September 1987 and his retention in the prison on 30th January 1988 would, therefore, be rendered unjustifiable. In this view of the matter, this Court will not take cognizance of what transpired on 30th January 1988 or anything that had happened thereafter.
3. Shri Solkar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, has submitted that the respondents passed an order dated 5th June 1985, by which order it was directed that the prisoner was to undergo sentence for an additional period of two years. The grounds on which this order came to be passed have been set out by the respondents in their affidavit-in-reply and it is their contention that the prisoner’s conduct had not been good and that he had committed two prison offences, by virtue of which the authorities had taken the decision to extend his jail sentence by a period of two years.
4. The correctness of the order dated 5th June 1985 has been assailed by Shri Gavankar on two grounds. In the first instance, he has pointed out that as far as the two prison offences were concerned, the prisoner has already been sufficiently punished inasmuch as a certain part of his remissions has been deducted. He, therefore, submits that the authorities had erred in law in having sought to reimpose punishment on a second occasion in respect of the very acts for which he had earlier been punished. In addition to this, Shri Gavankar contends that he has set out in the Petition the detailed narration of the prisoner’s conduct in the prison and the fact that he was entitled to get certain promotions essentially because of his good conduct. Shri Gavankar has relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Criminal Writ Petn. No. 276 of 1990 Zelya Balu Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. decided on 19th March 1990. In that case, the Division Bench was dealing with an identical set of facts and the Division Bench had taken the view that it is not permissible in law to punish a prisoner for a second time in respect of prison offences for which the punishment has already been imposed on him. This proposition of law is well settled and the submission advanced by Shri Gavankar in this regard is liable to be upheld. The authorities were certainly in error in having sought to punish the prisoner for a second time for the very offences in respect of which punishment had already been imposed on him by virtue of deduction of the remissions which he had earned.
5. Since there is no dispute about the fact that the prisoner even as on 30th January 1988 had already undergone the full period of sentence of 24 years, his continued detention in the prison is unjustified and, therefore, he will have to be set at liberty forthwith.
6. In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (b) and (c) of the petition. The prisoner shall be released from the prison forthwith, if not required in any other case.