1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 529 OF 2009 Devidas Balaji Raut .vs. State of Mah. & another _________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders. Registrars orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA & P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 16, 2009. Heard Mr. N.S. Bhat, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.M. Deshpande, learned A.P.P. for the respondents. The Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 13.1.2009 passed by the State Government whereby in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code and all other powers enabling it in this behalf and in supersession of Government order dated 10.7.2006, the Government of Maharashtra remitted the portion of the sentence of imprisonment for life of the petitioner and would release the petitioner after completion of 26 years with remission subject to condition of completion of minimum 14 years of actual imprisonment and petitioner’s good behaviour as well as conduct in the prison till the time of his release. Mr. N.S. Bhat, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner is categorized by the State under Category 4(d) of the new Guidelines dated 11.4.2008, which reads thus :- 2 Category No. Categorization of Crime Period of imprisonment to be undergone including remission subject to a minimum of 14 years of actual imprisonment including set off period. 4(d) Murder committed with the premeditation and with exceptional violence and or brutality 26 years It is contended that the petitioner was convicted by the trial Court for the offence of murder along with the other co- accused vide judgment and order dated 25.2.1994 and at that time the relevant guidelines for premature release under 14 Year Rule in existence were dated 11.5.1992 and the case of the petitioner was covered by Guideline No. 3(b) of the said Guidelines and the period of imprisonment the petitioner was supposed to undergo was only 24 years. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Mr. A.M. Deshpande, learned A.P.P. for the respondents, has disputed the contention canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the case of the petitioner on the basis of the judgment of the trial Court comes under the category of exceptional violence and brutality and, therefore, the categorization done by the State Government is just and proper. Considered the rival contentions and perused both the Guidelines – New and Old, as well as the judgment of the trial Court. 3 At the outset, we want to express that it is not in dispute that the deceased suffered as many as 18 injuries, out of which majority of them were incised wounds. It appears that the victim was tied to the tree and thereafter the assault was made which shows the premeditation. In the circumstances, it is apparent that the murder committed was with premeditation and with exceptional violence and brutality. Clause 4(d) of the new Guideline is pari materia with Clause 3(d) of the old Guidelines, including the period of imprisonment and, therefore, even if it is presumed that the petitioner is governed by the old Guidelines, even in that event it is not going to help the petitioner in any way since the case of the petitioner so far as the old Guidelines are concerned, would fall within the ambit of Clause 3(d) and in that case, the petitioner will have to undergo imprisonment for a period of 26 years. For the reasons stated hereinabove, no case is made out for showing any indulgence. The Criminal Writ Petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE. J.