1 wp2579.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2579 OF 2011 KJ Ganpat Govind Gotawade )..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra )..Respondents ---- Mr.V.V.Katti Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mrs. A.S.Pai APP for respondent/State. ---- CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & P.D.KODE, JJ DATE : 13th October, 2011 PC 1 Heard Counsel for the parties. 2 Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives notice for respondent/State. 3 By this petition the decision of appropriate authority dated 8.7.2011 on the proposal of premature release of the petitioner is taken exception. By the said decision, the appropriate authority 2 wp2579.11.sxw has found that the petitioner has committed offence on 20.1.1996 with pre-mediation. For that reason, he was classified under category 1(D) of the guidelines of 1992. The order then records that as per the guidelines of 2010, the petitioner’s case would be covered by category 2(C) . 2 Counsel for the petitioner relying on the observations of the trial Court in paragraph-43 of the judgment, submitted that it was not at all a case of pre-mediation as the petitioner had intention to kill `Shaila’ and not `Kokila’. It is then contended by the learned Counsel that in any case the authority had already classified the petitioner as covered under category 1(D) of the 1992 guidelines. As per the guidelines of 2010, the petitioner would be covered by category 2(B) and not category 2(C) as has been recorded in the impugned order. The category 1(D) under guidelines of 1992 pertain to the crime committed against the aggrieved person with pre-mediation. The sentence provided for the said category was 26 years with remission. That type of offence, under guidelines 2010, is covered by category 2(B) i.e crime committed with pre- 3 wp2579.11.sxw mediation against women and minors. As per guidelines of 2010, in the said category 2(B), the punishment provided is 22 years including remission. 3 In our opinion, instead of analyzing the argument canvassed by the petitioner, it would be appropriate that the petitioner is relegated before the concerned authority who can re-examine the proposal of the petitioner and take appropriate decision as may be advised, in accordance with law. We are not expressing any final opinion and leave it to the appropriate authority to examine the same afresh on its own merits. 4 Accordingly, the impugned decision is set aside. The appropriate authority is directed to re-examine the petitioner’s proposal for premature release as expeditiously as possible in any case not later than eight weeks from today. All contentions are left open. 5 The court expresses a word of gratitude to the learned 4 wp2579.11.sxw Amicus Curiae for her able assistance for espousing the cause of the petitioner. 6 Copy of the order be forwarded to the petitioner who is presently in jail. (P.D.KODE,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)