1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2448 OF 2011 Shaikh Subhan Shaikh Razzak Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.Nitin Pradhan, Amicus Curiae for petitioner. Mr.P.S.Hingorani, APP for State. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATE : 27th September 2011 PC : 1. This petition is received through jail. We have heard Mr.Nitin Pradhan, learned Amicus Curiae as well as learned APP.. 2. The petition seeks to assail the opinion recorded by the Section Officer, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra in his order dated 22nd July 2011 while considering the proposal for premature release of the petitioner. After scrutinizing the facts of the case, the authority opined that the case would be covered by category 1(d) of the Guidelines issued on 11th May 1992. It is then noted that the case would be covered by Guideline No.2(c) of the Guidelines dated 15th March 2010. 3. In view of this opinion, the learned Amicus Curiae submits that the appropriate authority has committed manifest error inasmuch as category 1(d) of the Guidelines of 1992 is in respect of crime 2 committed against aggrieved person with premeditation and the sentence period provided is 26 years with remission. As per Guidelines of 2010, that category is covered by clause 2(b). The sentence period provided in respect of said category is 22 years with remission. On that basis, the learned Amicus Curiae contends that the petitioner having undergone almost 24 years of sentence period with remission, is entitled to be released keeping in mind the exposition of the Apex Court in case of State of Harayana and others Vs. Jagdish reported in (2010)4-SCC-216, in particular paragraph 54 thereof. 4. The argument though attractive, at the first blush, will have to be turned down. Inasmuch as, it appears to us that there is some manifest error committed by the authority in referring to guideline No. 1(d) of 1992 Guidelines in spite of having opined that the offence committed by the petitioner was with exceptional violence in a public place of having assaulted `Kulsubi' w/o Yusuf Khan Pathan with a knife causing three fatal injuries. It appears that the deceased had illicit relations with the petitioner. In the backdrop of these facts, the case would and ought to be covered by category 1(e) of Guidelines of 1992 which will be equivalent to category 2(c) of Guidelines of 2010. In the impugned decision the appropriate authority has correctly referred to category 2(c) of Guidelines of 2010 but has wrongly referred to as category 1(d) of the Guidelines of 1992 instead of guideline 1(e) thereof. 5. Even though we may disagree with the submission made by the learned Amicus Curiae of placing the petitioner in category 1(d) of Guidelines of 1992, we deem it appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned decision and relegate the petitioner before the appropriate authority for reconsideration of the case keeping in mind 3 the observations of the Sessions Court about the nature and background in which the offence was committed by the petitioner, as is noted in the decision dated 12th June 1996 in Sessions Case No. 101 of 1995 including the conclusion in paragraph 35 of the said decision. 6. The proposal of the petitioner be reconsidered by the appropriate authority on its own merits without being influenced by the earlier opinion as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. A copy of this order be forwarded to the petitioner who is in jail for information. 8. The Court expresses word of gratitude for the able assistance given by the Amicus Curiae to espouse the cause of the petitioner. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)