1 2801.11 SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2801 OF 2011 Joginder Rikai Paswan ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.S.G.Kudle, amicus curiae. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, A.P.P. for Respondents. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATED:- DECEMBER 7, 2011. P.C. 1. This letter Petition takes exception to the decision of the Section Officer, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra dated 4th August, 2011 categorising the petitioner as falling under category 3(b) of Guidelines for premature release of 1992 which is equivalent to category 4(d) of Guidelines of 2010. The argument of the learned amicus curiae is that the decision of the Sessions Court, even if fairly read, it is not possible to take the view that a clear finding of fact has been recorded by the Trial Court to the effect that the incident in question occurred due to pre- meditation of the accused persons. According to him, the categorisation of 2 2801.11 the petitioner under Clause 3(b) of the Guidelines of 1992 equivalent to Clause 4(d) of Guidelines of 2010 is inappropriate. However, on careful reading of the decision of the Trial Court in Sessions Case No.960/1997 dated 25/27th July, 2000, it is noticed that in Paragraph 42, the Trial Court has pointedly dealt with question about the motivation behind the offence in which the petitioner has been named as accused and whether it was premeditation or otherwise? The Trial Court has found that the offence as committed was with motive and imminently dangerous and with premeditation. These finding of fact has attained finality.The Appropriate Authority was obliged to follow the said finding,. As a matter of fact, the said finding of fact until reversed by the Court of competent jurisdiction, would also bind the petitioner before this Court. In that view of the matter, the argument of the petitioner that the petitioner has been wrongly categorised under Clause 3(b) of the Guidelines of 1992 equivalent to Clause 4(d) of Guidelines of 2010 cannot be countenanced. 2. As no other question is pressed before us, Petition disposed of. 3. The Court expresses a word of gratitude for the able assistance rendered by the amicus curaie to espouse the cause of the petitioner. 3 2801.11 4. Copy of this order be forwarded to the petitioner. who is in jail. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)