1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No. 538/2011 Afsar Beg s/o Sattar Beg vs. State of Maharashtra, through its' Secretary, Home Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 and others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mr. Nitesh Samundre, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A.S.Fulzele, APP for respondents. CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & P.B.VARALE,JJ DATE : 21.11.2011 This petition is at the instance of the petitioner, who at the time of filing of the Criminal Writ Petition, was undergoing the sentence of imprisonment for life in the Central Prison. The petitioner, in this petition, contends that the case of the petitioner would be covered by the Guidelines dated 16.11.1978. 2. It appears that the petitioner had filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 23/11 before the Division Bench of this Court contending that the petitioner is entitled to be released prematurely and his case would fall in the category 3 (a) of the Guidelines, which provided for premature release of a prisoner upon completion of 22 years of imprisonment including 2` remissions. The Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 9th March, 2011 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 23/11 held that the petitioner would fall in the category 3 (b) of 1992 Guidelines. 3. It appears that in another Criminal Writ Petition which was filed viz. Criminal Writ Petition No. 544/10 (Punjab Vishram Ambhore vs. State of Maharashtra and others), the Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 24th January, 2011 called upon the State to give list of the names of the prisoners, whose case would be covered by the 1978 Guidelines. Accordingly, a pursis was filed by the State in the said pending Writ Petition. In the pursis, name of the petitioner is shown at sr. no. 3 in the chart relating to the prisoners from the Central Prison at Nagpur. In the said chart against the name of the petitioner, it is stated at column no.11 that the petitioner fell in category 3(b) of 1992 Guidelines and would be released upon completion of 24 years imprisonment. 4. The present petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to release the petitioner forthwith in view of the Guidelines of 1978 and also prays that the respondents be directed to pay compensation to the petitioner for the so-called illegal detention of the petitioner, if 1978 Guidelines are 3` applied. 5. The Division Bench of this Court, in the earlier decision, had come to the conclusion that the case of the petitioner fell in category 3 (b) of 1992 Guidelines. The respondents have also contended that the case of the petitioner falls under 1992 Guidelines. However, now it appears that the respondents have passed order dated 8.11.2011 in the light of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Harayana vs. Jagdish, AIR 2010 Supreme Court, 1690 in which the Supreme Court had observed that the State has to exercise its power of remission keeping in mind any benefit to be construed liberally in favour of the convict which may depend upon case to case and for that purpose to relate to a policy which would be in favour of the convict. In the light of the said observations of the Supreme Court by order dated 8.11.2011, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, has directed the release of the petitioner upon completion of 14 years of actual imprisonment. The learned APP states that the case of the petitioner is considered and the petitioner has been released insofar as it relates to his imprisonment in the present crime. However, the petitioner was required in another case and, therefore, has been transferred to the District Prison, Amravati. 4` 6. In the earlier petition, which was filed by the petitioner, the petitioner had not contended that the case of the petitioner would cover by 1978 Guidelines and not by 1992 Guidelines. The Division Bench, upon consideration, came to the conclusion that the case of the petitioner was covered by 1992 Guidelines and the petitioner fell in category 3(a) instead of 3(b) of 1992 Guidelines. No attempt has been made by the petitioner to seek review of the earlier Judgment by pointing that in the light of the subsequent events the case of the petitioner would be covered by 1978 Guidelines and not by 1992 Guidelines. It is in the light of the Judgment of the Supreme Court that the authorities by order dated 8.11.2011 have directed the release of the petitioner. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, according to us, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any compensation from the State nor can it be said that the detention of the petitioner was illegal and contrary to law. 8. Since, we do not find any merit in the present petition, this petition is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE patle 5`