1 6.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.6 OF 2011 Nishan Singh Jaimal Singh Sohel ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.N.N.Gavankar i/b Mr.Arfan Sait for Petitioner. Mr.H.J.Deshia, A.P.P. for State. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED:- FEBRUARY 2, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. The only issue that needs to be addressed in this Petition is: whether the Deputy Secretary, Home Department was justified in providing for 60 years of total imprisonment including all remissions in his order dated 15h July, 2009 passed against the petitioner, which view is in the teeth of the guidelines of 1992. The guidelines of 1992 issued under the Notification dated 11th May 1992 by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, specifically provide for period of imprisonment to be undergone including remission. It provides for minimum of 14 years of actual imprisonment including set-off period in respect of murders committed and as a means to 2 6.11 inquire political philosophy and as a means to acquire political powers as by terrorists and extremists groups up to 30 years in terms of clause 4(c) thereof. The impugned decision neither makes reference to that provision nor has assigned any reason whatsoever as to why the Authority has proceeded to specify period of 60 years of total imprisonment instead of 30 years as provided by the guidelines of 1992. 2. In view of this patent error committed by the Appropriate Authority, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned decision dated 15th July, 2009 and instead direct the Appropriate Authority to re-examine the proposal of the petitioner on its own merits in accordance with law, keeping in mind, the relevant provisions of guidelines of 1992 referred to above. Although, Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the order passed by the Appropriate Authority in the case of another convict who has been held guilty for offence punishable under TADA, as, in the case of Petitioner, the punishment already provided is only of 30 years, which obviously is consistent with the guidelines of 1992. 3. Suffice it to observe that this Petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned decision is set-aside and the Appropriate Authority is directed to 3 6.11 reconsider the Petitioner’s proposal for premature release, keeping in mind the guidelines of 1992 relied by the petitioner being more favourable to him in comparison with any other guidelines including issued in the year 2008. 4. The Appropriate Authority shall decide the said proposal as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within six weeks from the date of this order. All questions are left open. 5. Petition disposed of accordingly. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)