1 ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 1111 OF 2009. Shaikh Hasan Abdul Kadar. ..Petitioner. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr Madhav J.Jamdar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr D.P. Adsule, A.P.P.,for the State. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI AND A.R.JOSHI,JJ DATED : 7TH SEPTEMBER,2009 P.C.:- The petitioner has challenged the order of the respondents holding that the petitioner could be released only after serving 24 years of imprisonment. The guidelines which were applicable on the date of conviction have been applied to him which are also challenged by the petitioner. That challenge has to fail in view of our earlier judgment that the guidelines applicable under Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal 2 Procedure would be applicable. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the new guidelines dated 11th April, 2008 are framed by the Government and as per said guidelines dated 11th May, 1992 earlier orders were superseded and thus, the petitioner’s case falls under category 3 (a), however, the respondents have treated the case of the petitioner under category No. 3(b) of the guidelines dated 11th May, 1992. We are of the opinion that the guidelines of 1992 would be applicable to him and he should be released after service of 22 years of imprisonment as murder committed by him was premeditated. In this connection, he relies on relevant paragraph of the Trial Court in which the learned Sessions Judge recorded the submission of the learned A.P.P., at the time of awarding the sentence. It appears that the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner was not present at the time of hearing on the point of sentence and the learned A.P.P., for the State had conceded that the attack made by the accused would not fall in the category of rarest of the rare case and he prayed that imprisonment for life may be given. In this context, learned A.P.P., also said that the murder was result of mainly out burst. If one sees the evidence it shows that the murder committed by the petitioner was premeditated. The evidence shows that the accused committed murder of his brother as he was responsible for 3 spoil the life of his sister-in-law. The accused, in broad day light,on the day of the incident at a busy area, fallen the deceased and by means of a knife slit open the throat of the deceased deeply. For these reasons, we do not find any interference is called for in the matter. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed and disposed of accordingly. (BILAL NAZKI,J) (A.R.JOSHI,J)