1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 14 OF 2009 Raju @ Raghuvendra Singh Fulel Singh. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors.. ... .... Respondents. Mr. Surve with Mr. M. J. Jamdar for the Petitioner. Mr. P. S. Hingorani, APP for the Respondents. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED : 3RD FEBRUARY, 2009. P. C.: The petitioner has been sentenced to life imprisonment on an allegation that he murdered his brother over a dispute regarding money. The charge which was framed against him and which was proved against him was that in the night intervening on 11th May, 1994 and 12th May, 1994 on the 6th floor of Davar House in Room No. 601 the accused committed murder by causing the death of Rajendra singh by means of throwing of a grinding stone on his person. 2. This charge was proved and the petitioner was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. The petitioner has already undergone the imprisonment 2 of 22½ years according to the learned Public Prosecutor. The case of the petitioner is that he is entitled to be released prematurely in view of the guidelines framed by the Government under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code. But the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this petition and has submitted that an order has been passed on 31st January, 2009 by the Government in which it is stated that the Government has remitted the portion of the sentence of imprisonment of life in cases of 24 years of total imprisonment. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the case of the petitioner falls under category 4(c). Category 4(c) reads as under: "Crime committed (a) above but with premeditation or by a gang or by a person having criminal history.” Such persons have to undergo an imprisonment of 24 years. Learned Public Prosecutor wants us to hold that since the crime falls under category 4(a), therefore category 4(c) would apply. Category 4(a) lays down that the imprisonment would be 20 years where a murder is committed in the course of quarrel without premeditation in an individual capacity and the person has no previous criminal history. Even if category 4(a) is to be read with category 4(c), even then it would mean that 24 years imprisonment is provided for those who committed crime with premeditation and if the 3 crime was committed by a gang or by a person having criminal history. There is nothing in the judgement of the trial Court showing that the petitioner in this case has criminal history. A single person can also not be termed as a “gang”. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor does not want to file counter affidavit and has agreed that the matter be decided at this stage. The order passed by the Government cannot be sustained on any ground whatsoever. This has been a feeling that such matters are not considered at the level they should be considered and perhaps the matters are considered at a level where the Officers do not understand the implications of the law. Therefore, we feel that the Government should be told that these matters should be considered at a level where the matters are understood in the correct perspective and if need be, the opinion of the Law Department should be taken. 5. Since the petitioner has committed murder of his brother during the quarrel with his brother, his case squarely falls under category 3(a) or 4(a) and the maximum sentence would be 20 years. The petitioner has already undegone 22½ years of imprisonment and as such he has been in custody for more than 20 years in terms of the guidelines. 6. In the circumstances, we direct that the petitioner should be 4 released forthwith if not required in any other case. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)