1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 231 OF 2010 (Suman Girdhar Gaikwad & another .vs. State of Maharashtra & others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. R.M. Daruwala, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioners. Shri T.A. Mirza, APP for the respondents. ….. CORAM : MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATED : JULY 14, 2011. The petitioners have preferred this petition through jail. As the appointed Advocate is not present, hence, we appoint Advocate Mr. R.M. Daruwala, who is on the same panel to appear for the petitioners. Heard Mr. R.M. Daruwala, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Shri Mirza, learned A.P.P. for the respondents. By the judgment and order dated 17.12.1997, the petitioners were convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The case of the petitioners is that they were arrested on 23.04.1997 and since then they are in custody. They state that on account of completing 50 years of independence, the State announced that two years’ State remission be given to all convicts who are in Prison on 15.08.1997. The petitioners have prayed 2 that they be given two years’ State remission as they were in prison on 15.08.1997. The learned APP pointed out that said State remission was only for the benefit of prisoners who had already been convicted and undergoing imprisonment on that date and State remission does not extend to the under-trial prisoners. As the petitioners were under-trial prisoners on the said date, State remission benefit cannot be given to the petitioners. In response to this, the learned Advocate for the petitioners has drawn our attention to an order of this Court dated 30.06.2008 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 244 of 2008 (Rajubhau Gaddalwar vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.). He submitted that in this case, it was held that State remission should be made applicable to a convict even if he was an under-trial on 15.08.1997. This decision is based on the judgment in Criminal Writ Petition No. 163 of 2008 decided on 20.06.2008 (Chotu Ratan Punekar vs. State of Maharashtra). In reply to this, the learned APP has pointed out that the decision of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 163 of 2008 has been challenged before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition No. 1799 of 2009 and the Supreme Court has granted stay to the said order. Obviously, as stay has been granted by the Supreme Court, it would not be possible for us to grant State remission to the petitioners. However, if 3 the Supreme Court holds that the benefit can be extended to under-trial prisoners, then in such case the Prison authorities to extend the said benefit of State remission to the petitioners also. With these observations, petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Fees of the appointed Advocate are quantified at Rs.750/-. JUDGE JUDGE J.