1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2444 OF 2011 Mohd. Akhtar Ilyas Ansari Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and another Respondents Ms.Amita Kuttikrishnan, Amicus Curiae for petitioner. Mr.A.S.Gadkari, APP for State. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATE : 16th September 2011 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP.. This petition is received through jail. The petitioner has questioned the decision of the appropriate authority dated 4th May 2011 categorizing the petitioner under Category 2(c) of Guidelines dated 15th March 2010. As per the said Guidelines the petitioner will have to undergo imprisonment including remission up to 26 years. However, it is noticed that the case of the petitioner was scrutinized as per Guidelines of 1992 vide GR dated 11th May 1992. The petitioner was placed in Category 1(d) thereof which means that the petitioner had committed the stated offence with premeditation and therefore would be required to undergo imprisonment including remission for a period of 26 years. According to the petitioner the basis on which the category of the petitioner has now been specified as 2(c) cannot be discerned from the impugned decision. No reason to justify the said change of categorization can be found in the 2 impugned order. The category 2(c) under the Guidelines of 2010 is in respect of the crime committed with exceptional violence and/or with brutality. However, in the case before us, the petitioner was tried for the offence for inflicting one blow by razer which caused death of the woman. That crime cannot be described as committed with exceptional violence and/or brutality. 2. In this view of the matter, we are in agreement with the submission of the Amicus Curiae that there was no tangible reason for the appropriate authority to alter the category of the petitioner from category covered by 1(d) of the Guidelines of 1992 i.e. crime committed against the aggrieved person with premeditation. Applying the decision of the Apex Court in case of State of Harayana Vs. Jagdish (AIR-2010-SC-1690), the petitioner's case will have to be considered on the basis of the Guidelines as may be applicable to the said category. 3. As aforesaid, as per the Guidelines of 2010, the period specified for the said category is only 22 years. Thus, the appropriate authority ought to have answered the issue on that basis. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the impugned decision and relegate the petitioner before the appropriate authority for reconsideration of the matter in the light of the observations made in the decision of State of Harayana Vs. Jagdish (supra). The appropriate authority shall pass fresh order as expeditiously as possible preferably within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order either from the petitioner or the High Court/Office of the Public Prosecutor. Ordered accordingly. 4. The Court expresses word of gratitude for the able assistance given by the Amicus Curiae to espouse the cause of the petitioner. A 3 copy of this order be forwarded to the petitioner who is in jail for information. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)