1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2230 OF 2006 JAGDISH JAIRAM PAWAR .. PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. .. RESPONDENTS Ms. Indrajani M.Koparkar i/b Sunita Kadu for the petitioner Mr. D.S. Mhaispurkar, APP CORAM:-SMT. RANJANA DESAI & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED:-12/2/2007 P.C. . In this petition, the petitioner has prayed that order dated 6/4/04 imposing penalty upon the petitioner be set aside and premature release of the petitioner be ordered. 2. Respondent No. 1 opposed this prayer by filing affidavit of Rajendra T. Dhamane, Superintendent of Yerwada Central Prison. Following are the relevant paragraphs of the said affidavit; . "I say that the record further reveals that "14 Years Report" for premature release of the present petitioner was submitted by Inspector General of Prisons, Pune on 9/3/05 to Home Department, who had recommended the release of the Petitioner after 2 completion of 24 years of imprisonment with remission. However, the Home Department vide its order dated 23/8/05, categorised the petitioner in the 6(a) Category as he had overstayed by 244 days from parole leave, thereby remitting his sentences after the completion of 28 years of imprisonment with remission. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted an application dated 10/1/06 to the Home Department, explaining his over stay period of 244 days and requested to reconsider the same as during the said period he was hospitalized for treatment. Taking into consideration, the Home Department cancelled the said order dated 23/8/05 and vide order dated 26/7/06, recategorised the petitioner in category 3(b) instead 6(a), thereby remitting his sentence after competition of 24 years imprisonment with remission. I say that the petitioner again availed parole leave for the period between 19/3/06 to 17/4/06 for the period of 30 days and the petitioner ought to have surrendered on 18/4/06 but the petitioner had not surrendered till date. . I say that the actual imprisonment including remission undergone by the petitioner is 19 years, 5 months and 14 days and the petitioner yet has to 3 undergo the balance period in view of the category 3(b) in which he falls vide Order dated 26/7/06." 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out to us that both the legs of the petitioner have been amputated on account of gangrene. According to the learned counsel the petitioner surrendered late because he was hospitalised. Photographs of the petitioner are annexed to the petition. The learned APP did not dispute that both the legs of the petitioner are amputated. 4. In view of this, we had requested the learned APP to review the petitioner’s case. We are happy to note that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the State Government has passed order dated 9/2/07 in exercise of power conferred by sub-Section 1 of Section 432 read with Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, remitting the remaining portion of the sentence of imprisonment of life of the petitioner. The petitioner has been released from jail on 10th February, 2007. 5. In view of the fact that the petitioner has been released from jail, the petition is disposed of as infructuous. 4 JUDGE. JUDGE.