1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 163 OF 2010 KHANDU GANPAT SONAWANE .. PETITIONER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. D. G. Khamkar for the petitioner Mr. H. J. Dedhia CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATED : 23rd February, 2010 P.C. The petitioner is a life convict. He is at present lodged in Yerwada Central Prison. He was charged for offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”). By judgment and order dated 6/9/96 the Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay convicted him under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for life. The petitioner challenged the said judgment and order by filing appeal in this court. This court rejected the appeal. The petitioner has completed more than 14 years of actual imprisonment and more than 22 years of total imprisonment with remissions. 2. It appears that the petitioner had preferred Writ Petition No. 323 of 2009 2 praying that his case may be reconsidered as per guidelines issued by the Government of Maharashtra dated 11/4/2008 for premature release of prisoners serving life sentence under “14 Years Rules” (Guidelines dated 11/4/08). 3. On 26/2/09 the Division Bench of this court noted that the petitioner had undergone more than 20 years of sentence. The Division Bench observed that the petitioner’s case should be considered having regard to the Guidelines dated 11//4/08. The Division Bench gave a direction to the State that it should consider the request of the petitioner for releasing him in accordance with the Guidelines dated 11/4/08. The petition was disposed of. 4. As the said direction was not followed, the petitioner filed the instant petition on 11/1/2010 making the same prayer. Subsequently on 30/1/08 the State of Maharashtra passed an order placing the petitioner in category 1(b) of the old guidelines dated 11/5/92 (Guidelines of 1992). Pursuant to the leave granted by us the petitioner has amended the petition and has prayed that the said order be set aside. 5. We have been shown the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhup Singh, (2009) All M.R. (Cri) 524 (S.C.). In that case the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to ask for remission of sentence by a life convict would be under the law as was prevailing on the date on which judgment of the conviction and sentence was passed. Unfortunately this judgment was not pointed out to the Division Bench when it disposed of the 3 petitioner’s Writ Petition No. 323 of 2009 on 26/2/2009. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed on this point. 6. In the light of Bhup Singh’s judgment, there can be no doubt that the petitioner’s case will be covered by the Guidelines of 1992 because he was convicted on 6/9/96. The State Government has passed an order dated 30/1/08 placing the petitioner under category No. 1(b) of the Guidelines of 1992. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s case has been wrongly put in category 1(b) of the Guidelines of 1992 because it pertains to crimes committed by persons with premeditation. He submitted that the crime in which the petitioner was involved is not committed by him with premeditation. It was committed in an individual capacity in a moment of anger. Learned counsel submitted that, therefore, the petitioner’s case would fall in category 1(a). 8. We find considerable merit in this submission. We have perused the judgment dated 6/9/96. The petitioner has in a moment of anger poured kerosene on his wife. The wife succumbed to the burn injuries. The facts narrated in the judgment indicate that the crime was committed without premeditation . It is a murder committed in an individual capacity. It is not disputed by the State that the petitioner has no antecedents. Therefore, in our opinion, the petitioner’s case should be placed in category 1(a) of Guidelines of 1992 which pertains to cases where the convict has no previous criminal history and who has committed murder in an individual capacity in a moment 4 of anger and without premeditation. This categorization needs to be set right because for category 1(a) the period of imprisonment to be undergone including remissions subject to a minimum period of 14 years of actual imprisonment including set off period is 22 years and so far as category 1(b) is concerned it is 24 years. We are informed that the petitioner is in jail for more than 22 years including remissions. 9. In view of the above, we set aside the order dated 30/1/08 which is impugned in this petition. The petitioner is directed to be placed in category 1(a) of the Guidelines of 1992 instead of category 1(b). The authorities are directed to give effect to this order. If upon calculation the petitioner is required to be released in terms of our order, he may be released forthwith unless he is required in any other case. 10. Petition is disposed of. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)