1 SSK/29 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.665 OF 2010 Shankar Ram Mhatre ....Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. N. N. Gawankar i/b. Mr. Arfan Sait, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs. S. D. Shinde, APP. CORAM : D. B. BHOSALE & R. V. MORE, JJ. DATED : 20th APRIL, 2010. P.C.: Learned APP waives service for respondents. Rule. By consent of the parties, rule is made returnable forthwith and taken up for hearing. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 7th August, 2009 passed by Respondent No.1. By this Order, the Government of Maharashtra has considered the case of the petitioner under 1992-Guidelines for premature release and held that the case of the petitioner falls under category No.4(b) of the guidelines for premature release of the prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment or to death 2 penalty commuted to life imprisonment after 18th December, 1978 (for short “the guidelines”). Category 4 (b) reads thus: GUIDELINES FOR PREMATURE RELEASE OF PRISONERS SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT OR TO DEATH PENALTY COMMUTED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT AFTER 18TH DECEMBER, 1978. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CATEGORISATION OF CRIMES PERIOD OF IMPRISONMENT TO BE UNDERGONE INCLUDING REMISSIONS SUBJECT TO A MINIMUM OF 14 YEARS OF ACTUAL IMPRISONMENT INCLUDING SET- OFF PERIOD. 1 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) MURDER FOR POLITICAL REASONS: a) ....... 24 years b) Murder arising out of political rivalry and political interest with 26 years premeditation. c) ........ 30 years -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Mr. Gawankar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, invited our attention to the judgment dated 19th March, 1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge of Raigad, Alibag in Sessions Case No.133 of 1996 by which the petitioner alongwith other accused had been convicted for the offence under section 302 read with section 149 of the IPC and section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and submitted that by no stretch of imagination, the incident/motive in this case of murder can be stated to be arising out of political rivalry or political interest with premeditation. In short he submitted that the case of the petitioner is not covered by Category No. 3 4(b). We have perused the judgment and more particularly paragraph nos. 32 to 37. In paragraph 37 of the judgment, the learned Judge has held thus: “ Considering evidence of prosecution witnesses referred above, though PW 2 Namdeo Tarekar and PW 5 Draupadi are deposing about election of Sarpancha as one of the causes for the incident, it appears that with the admission by these 2 witnesses in their cross examination, it is brought on record that after said election, till day of incident, atmosphere in the village was peaceful and consequentially, said cause cannot be termed as a cause for the incident. So also, admission on the part of his witness is establishing that the said incident of election of Grampanchayat cannot be termed as cause for the incident.” (emphasis supplied) Having regard to the observations made in the judgment dated 19th March, 1998, we find force in the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is not covered by Category No. 4(b) in the guidelines. In view thereof, the order dated 7th August, 2009 deserves to be set-aside. Order accordingly. 4 4. The Government of Maharashtra shall consider the case of the petitioner for premature release under the 1992-Guidelines afresh as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is accordingly disposed of, in terms of this order. (R. V. MORE, J.) (D. B. BHOSALE, J.)