1 31 wp.2512.10 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2512 OF 2010 Ranjit Bahuku Mukhiya. ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent ----- Ms. Sarojini Upadhyay for the Petitioner. Mr. D.P.Adsule, APP for the State. ----- CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR and P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : 30 th September, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned APP. 2 Considering the circumstances in which the offence was committed by the Petitioner as is noted in the judgment and which is the basis on which the decision has been taken by the appropriate authority to categorize the Petitioner as falling in category in 1(e), the same is unexceptionable. As the said classification is correctly done, no fault can be found with the order of the authority as the extant regulation provides that such convict will have to undergo minimum 14 years of actual imprisonment including set off period and 28 years period of 2 31 wp.2512.10 imprisonment including remission. That is the order passed by the appropriate authority. 3 Now, it is sought to be contended that the offence was committed in the year 1995. At the relevant time, the Petitioner was a minor as he was born on 25 th August, 1984. To support this position, reliance has been placed on the affidavit of Petitioner’s mother and the medical examination certificate issued by the Department of Forensic Medicine, B.J. Medical College and Sassoon General Hospital, Pune dated 26 th March, 2009. The said medical certificate opines that the age of the Petitioner when he was examined and certificate is issued, was around 21 years. If this claim of the Petitioner is to be accepted, it would necessarily follow that when the offence was committed, the Petitioner was juvenile in conflict with law. If so, whether different set of consideration and regulation will have to be taken into account for considering his prayer for premature release, is a matter which will have to be considered by the appropriate authority. But before that, it may be necessary to ascertain the age of the Petitioner on the date when the offence was committed. The appropriate authority may take steps in that regard and if there is substance in the claim of the Petitioner, that he was a minor and therefore, juvenile in conflict with law at the relevant time. The authority may reconsider the request for premature release afresh on its own merits in accordance with law. The authority may take necessary steps in the light of the observations made in this order expeditiously and 3 31 wp.2512.10 in any case not later than three months from today. Petition disposed of on the above terms. 4 We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the correctness of the stand of the Petitioner, which as aforesaid will have to be inquired into. 5 Court expresses word of gratitude for the able assistance given by the advocate appointed to espouse the cause of the Petitioner. 6 Copy of this order be forwarded to the Petitioner who is in jail, forthwith. [ P.D. KODE, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ]