drp {1} Cri.W.P.No.141/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.141 OF 2011 Chandrabhan Ramkrishna Patil PETITIONER (Chaudhary) Age-73 Occ-Nil R/o Presently Central Prison Harsul Dist-Aurangabad VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS Through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. Deputy Inspector General (Prison) Central Division, Aurangabad 3. Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Aurangabad ....... Mr. A.G.Talhar, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs.S.D.Shelke, APP for respondents State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 14 th June 2011 drp {2} Cri.W.P.No.141/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.): 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally, at the stage of admission. 2. This petition, at the instance of the petitioner, who is convicted and who is undergoing sentence of imprisonment, challenges categorization of the petitioner in Category-3 (d) of the Guidelines issued by the Government. By virtue of Category-3 (d), the petitioner is required to undergo imprisonment of 26 years, as the offence is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner with premeditation. 3. Principal challenge in this petition is that the petitioner could not have been placed in Category 3 (d) as the petitioner, on the date of his placing in Category 3 (d), was more than 65 years of age. The petitioner relies upon a circular issued by the Government, dated 10.06.2006, which in turns states that the prisoners, who have undergone actual imprisonment and who are more than 65 years of age, should be released upon undergoing actual imprisonment of 14 years. The respondent State has filed affidavit in reply and according to the respondents, the petitioner was between 50 to 60 years in 2010 and consequently the benefit of the circular cannot be extended to the petitioner. The petitioner, drp {3} Cri.W.P.No.141/2011 however, has annexed to the petition, the School Leaving Certificate and the photo copy of the voters identity card issued by the Election Commission of India, in support of his proof of age. The petitioner, therefore, contends that his date of birth is 03.10.1936 and consequently, he was more than 65 years in 2010 when he was placed in Category 3 (d). 4. In absence of unimpeachable evidence relating to consideration by the respondents of the documents, relating to age filed by the petitioner in this petition, we are inclined to quash and set aside the placement of the petitioner in category 3 (d) and remit the matter back to the respondents for a decision afresh, after taking into consideration the School Leaving Certificate and other proof in support of the age of the petitioner, which the petitioner would be permitted to produce. 5. We accordingly allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order placing the petitioner in category 3 (d) and remit the matter back to the respondents for a decision afresh, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to place before the Government the proof regarding his date of birth. The petitioner shall do so i.e. forward necessary certificates and documents, within 4 weeks from today. Upon receipt of the aforesaid documents from the petitioner, the respondents shall decide the applicability of the circular and the placement of the petitioner in the category in accordance with law, within 6 weeks drp {4} Cri.W.P.No.141/2011 thereafter. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B11/cwp141-11