1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 114 OF 2011 (Kundlik Kondba Gopale vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Ms. T.H. Udeshi, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner. Shri T.A. Mirza, APP for the respondents. ….. CORAM : MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. APRIL 08, 2011. Heard Ms. Udeshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mirza, APP for the respondent. By the judgment and order dated 03.07.1999, the petitioner was convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The case of the petitioner is that he was arrested on 09.05.1996 and since then he is in custody. He states 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 petitioner has prayed that he be given two years State remission as he was 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 2 on that date and State remission does not extend to the under trial prisoners. As the petitioner was an under trial prisoner on the said date, State remission benefit cannot be given to the petitioner. In response to this, the learned counsel for the petitioner 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.). She submitted that in this case, it was held that State remission should be made applicable to a convict even if he was under trial as 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 petitioner. However, if 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 petitioner also. With these observations, petition is disposed of. 3 The advocate appointed for the petitioner be paid fees as per rules. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner, who is a convict in Central Prison, Amravati. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.