Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. cri wp 2310-14.doc time, ultimately he was arrested by police and brought back to prison on 26.11.2013. Thus, there was overstay of parole by 259 days. The prayer of the petitioner is that the second punishment i.e of permanently removing him from the remission register be quashed as it amounts to double jeopardy.

3. Thus, the petitioner has no grievance in respect of C.R. No. 248/13 which is pending trial but his only prayer is that the order of removing him from remission register be set aside. The case of the petitioner is that as he has overstayed his parole leave on account of which C.R. No. 248/13 was registered against him, in such case, he cannot be punished against for the overstay by removing him from the remission register.

1. cri wp 2310-14.doc relying on the decision in the case of Maqbool Hussain (supra) held that it was not a case of double jeopardy. In the case of Akash Khandekar (supra), the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner was that it is a case of double jeopardy in the sense that apart from punishment of cutting of remission being imposed for overstay, the petitioner's application for parole was rejected. In the case of Akash (supra), relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Maqbool Hussain (supra), the contention of double jeopardy was negatived. In Buwaji Sahadeo Hazare, it was contended that on account of overstay, his parole and furlough applications were rejected and in addition, his remission was cut, therefore, it was contended that it was a case of double jeopardy. This Court relying on Maqbool Hussain turned down the said contention. The case of the petitioner is identical to the case of Anil Saundade, hence, no benefit can be given to the petitioner.