1 1653.11 SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1653 OF 2011 Vilas @ Babu Bhaguram Shirke ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2140 OF 2011 Milind Dhindu Gaikwad ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2180 OF 2011 Shiva Yashvant Tambe ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ...... Mr.Hetesh Shah for Petitioner. Mrs.M.H.Mhatre, A.P.P. for Respondent in WP/1653/11. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, A.P.P. for Respondent in WP/2140/2011. Mr.A.S.Gadkari, A.P.P. for Respondent in WP/2180/2011. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATED:- OCTOBER 18, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2 1653.11 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Learned A.P.Ps. waive notice for respondent in respective Petitions. 3. As short question is involved, Petitions are taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 4. The short question involved in these Petitions is: whether it is open to the Appropriate Authority to take into account other criminal cases registered against the convicts while categorisation of the convicts for the purpose of premature release? In all these cases, the Appropriate Authority took into account other criminal cases against the concerned convict in which he/they were found to be guilty for determining the categorisation of the concerned convict. 5. In our opinion, the categorisation of convict has to be done in connection with the case in which the convict is undergoing sentence and deserves to be prematurely released in connection with that offence. The fact that he was or has been found guilty in connection with some other criminal offence will have no bearing. Instead, the decision has to rest on the specific case in which the issue of premature release of the concerned 3 1653.11 convict is to be decided. Indeed, if the law provides that if the convict has engaged himself in successive offences, will not be eligible for the benefit of premature release, it will be open to the Authority to reject his proposal on that count. No such provision has been brought to our notice. 6. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to quash and set-aside the impugned decision in all the three cases and instead, relegate the petitioners before the Appropriate Authority for reconsideration of their proposal for premature release which will have to be decided, keeping in mind observations made by us in the earlier part of this decision. 7. The Appropriate Authority shall reconsider the case of each of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any case, not later than 16th December, 2011 and communicate its decision to the concerned petitioners within the same time. 8. Petition disposed of on the above terms. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)