ORDER 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. The appellant has been convicted of an offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code. Since 3 November 1995, he has been undergoing a sentence of life imprisonment and is presently confined at Wardha District Prison. 4. On 6 July 1998, the appellant was on furlough of 14 days. He was to return on 21 July 1998. He failed to surrender upon the expiry of the period of furlough and was untraced for 2194 days. He was arrested on 21 July 2004 and is in confinement since then. 5. A notice to show cause was issued to the appellant by the Superintendent of Police, Nagpur Central Jail on 23 July 2004. 6. The appellant submitted an explanation for his failure to surrender on the ground that his spouse died and he had two minor children aged 5 and 7 years to look after. 7. On 3 September 2005, an order was passed by the Regional Deputy Inspector General, East Division, Nagpur to forfeit the period of remission at the rate of five days for every one day that the appellant breached the stipulated duration of the furlough. Consequently, there has been a forfeiture of remission of 10,970 days. 8. The High Court confirmed the order of forfeiture on 5 March 2009 despite noting that there was no application of mind by or reasons indicated in the order of the D.I.G. (Prisons). 9. In pursuance of the notice that was issued by this Court on 14 January 2019, Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Maharashtra has appeared. Learned counsel states, on instructions, that as on 31 December 2018, the appellant has undergone 17 years, 11 months and 3 days of imprisonment without remission. 10. The attention of the Court was drawn to the fact that on 13 November 2018, a circular has been issued by the Additional Director General of Police, Pune to guide the process of decision making on applications for remission. 11. We are of the view that having regard to the above factual position, it would be necessary that the case of the appellant for remission be reconsidered afresh. 11. We are of the view that having regard to the above factual position, it would be necessary that the case of the appellant for remission be reconsidered afresh. We may note the grievance of the appellant that the forfeiture which was effected at the rate of five days for every one day that he exceeded his furlough was disproportionate and the authority had a discretion under the Prison Manual to take into account all attending circumstances. Since we are remitting the matter back to the competent authority, we are not expressing any opinion on that aspect of the matter. 12. We direct that the case of the appellant for remission be considered in accordance with law in view of the circular dated 13 November 2018. This shall be done expeditiously and within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 13. Having regard to the fact that the present appeal has been filed through the Legal Aid Cell, we have requested Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Maharashtra to furnish a copy of the order that will be passed by the competent authority to Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi, learned counsel who has represented the appellant in these proceedings. 14. Learned counsel would be at liberty to move this Court for appropriate directions, if it becomes necessary in future. 15. The criminal appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. 16. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.