ORAL JUDGMENT (Per D.D.Sinha, J) : 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 48-A 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 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. 4. Mr. Jichkar, Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the impugned orders and contended that this is not the first occasion when the petitioner, who was released on furlough, has reported late to the prison. It is contended that the following facts would show that, on the earlier occasion, when the petitioner was released on furlough leave, he did not surrender within time and therefore, he was given punishment according to the procedure prescribed in this regard. i) The petitioner was released on furlough leave for a period of 14 days on 11.3.2000. However, instead of reporting on the due date i.e. on 26.3.2000, the petitioner surrendered late by four days i.e. on 3.3.2000 and therefore, the jail authorities imposed punishment as per the Rule. ii) The petitioner was released on furlough leave on 1.8.2002 for a period of fourteen days by this Court. However, the petitioner failed to surrender on or before the due date and surrendered late by 315 days. iii) It is contended that the petitioner was again released on furlough leave on 17.12.2004. However, since he failed to surrender on the due date i.e. on 1.1.2005, the police authorities were required to arrest the petitioner in order to bring him back to the prison. At this time, the petitioner over-stayed by 124 days. 5. Mr.Jichkar, Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that following are the details in respect of late surrender by the petitioner to the prison while he was on parole leave. a) The petitioner was released on parole for a period of 30 days on 30.6.2001. At this time, the petitioner over-stayed by 124 days. 5. Mr.Jichkar, Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that following are the details in respect of late surrender by the petitioner to the prison while he was on parole leave. a) The petitioner was released on parole for a period of 30 days on 30.6.2001. However, he did not surrender on the due date and surrendered before the jail authorities late by 31 days and therefore, appropriate punishment according to procedure prescribed in this regard was imposed on the petitioner. 6. Mr.Jichkar, Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that, in the instant case, the petitioner was in a habit of surrendering late when he was released either on furlough leave or parole leave. He further contended that, in the instant case, appropriate Authority after following principles of natural justice as well as the procedure prescribed in this regard and after considering the explanation given by the petitioner, has imposed maximum punishment prescribed under the Rules and therefore, the order/orders impugned are just and proper. 7. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the decision relied on and cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is nodoubt true that the jail Authorities do have discretion to impose punishment and cut the remission for each day of over-stay; maximum upto five days. However, such discretion needs to be exercised by the jail Authorities keeping in view the cause and reason for over-stay. Similarly, the conduct of the prisoner is also relevant circumstance, which, in our view, cannot be ignored by the Authority while exercising discretion under the provisions of the Prisons Act and Statutory Rules applicable in this regard. We also want to express that the cases of late surrender by the prisoners in prisons are on increase. We have also noticed that in many cases police have to apprehend and arrest the prisoners in order to bring them back to the prison. It is, therefore, necessary that the tendency to disrespect the rule of law by the prisoner needs to be curbed. 8. In the instant case, in the back drop of the above referred facts, it is apparent that, as and when the petitioner was released on furlough or parole leave, he did not surrender on time and at times was required to be arrested in order to bring him back to the prison. 8. In the instant case, in the back drop of the above referred facts, it is apparent that, as and when the petitioner was released on furlough or parole leave, he did not surrender on time and at times was required to be arrested in order to bring him back to the prison. It is pertinent to note that the Authorities, on the earlier occasion when the petitioner surrendered late, though had imposed maximum punishment i.e. cut of five days' remission for each day of over-stay, but in spite of that, the petitioner did not improve his conduct and continued to either abscond or report late after expiry of period of furlough leave or parole leave. 9. In the instant case, it is not known as to when the petitioner has submitted application for extension of furlough leave i.e. before or after expiry of period for which the furlough leave was granted. Similarly, the explanation given by the petitioner to the show cause notice issued by the Authorities is totally vague and of a general nature. In the explanation, the petitioner has not mentioned the name of his brother, the date on which he expired, names of the children of his deceased brother : whether they were minor or major at the relevant time, nature of ailment of mother of the petitioner and in absence thereof, it is difficult for us to hold that the punishment imposed by the Authorities concerned and confirmed by the District Judge is without application of mind and is not sustainable in law. 10. So far as the decision of this Court in the case of Mohan Suryabhan Chandan (cited supra) is concerned, the facts and circumstances involved in the said case were entirely different than the one involved in the case at hand. In the said case, the prisoner has made an application for extension of time within three days after his release on furlough leave. However, there is no mention in the entire judgment as to whether the petitioner in the said case had a history of either absconding or reporting late to the prison as and when he was released on furlough/parole leave. However, there is no mention in the entire judgment as to whether the petitioner in the said case had a history of either absconding or reporting late to the prison as and when he was released on furlough/parole leave. It is in such circumstances the decision was rendered by this Court in the case of Mohan Suryabhan Chandan (cited supra), whereas in the instant case, as we have already observed that the petitioner has a history of reporting late or absconding after expiry of furlough or parole leave and therefore, the ratio laid down by this Court in the said judgment does not further the case of the petitioner. 11. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the Criminal Writ Petition suffers from lack of merits and hence, it is dismissed.