1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2048 of 2010 Afzalali Karimulla Ansari ....Petitioner/ original accused Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents Mrs. Mallika Ingale, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.P.Yagnik, APP for the State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND U.D. SALVI, JJ DATED:- SEPTEMBER 01, 2010 P.C. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner has questioned the correctness of the opinion recorded by the Desk Officer of the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department in his order dated 20th April, 2010. The order proceeds on the assumption that the case of the petitioner would be covered by category no. 1(c) of the 2 guidelines for premature release of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment or death penalty committed to life imprisonment after 18th December, 1978. In the present case the petitioner has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC by the Additional Sessions Court, Raigad vide order dated 10th May, 1995. Significantly, the impugned order records that the trial Court had concluded that the prisoner has committed murder of his wife Munnabai in the course of quarrel without premeditation. Notwithstanding the said finding the petitioner has been placed under Category no. 1(c) which pertains to the crime is committed against the aggrieved person without premeditation. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the categorization of petitioner is not properly done. Instead, the petitioner should be placed in the category (a) which pertains to where the convict is the aggrieved person and has no previous criminal history and committed murder in individual capacity in moment of anger and without pre-meditation. To buttress this submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of our High Court in Khandu Ganpat Sonawane v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. dated 23rd February, 2010 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 163/2010. Even in that case, the authority had categorized the person whose case was more or less 3 similar to the case of the petitioner and was convicted for murder of his wife by placing him under category 1(b). The Court considered the grievance of the said petitioner and accepted the argument that when the offence is committed in an individual capacity in a moment of anger and the convict has no previous criminal history, the case ought to be covered by category (a). On the basis of that finding the Court allowed the writ petition filed by said Khandu Sonawane. 4. The exposition in the said decision applies on all fours to the case on hand. In the circumstances, the petitioner ought to succeed with direction to the respondent to treat the petitioner as falling under category no. 1(a). of guidelines of 1992 in which case the sentence of imprisonment of life which is in excess of 22 years of total imprisonment including all remissions and set off period will have to be reckoned, subject, however, to the completion of actual imprisonment of 14 years. In the present case the petitioner has already completed more than 14 years of actual imprisonment and also 22 years of total imprisonment including of remission. As both these conditions are satisfied, the petitioner will therefore have to be released forthwith. 4 3. In view of the above, Petition disposed of on the above terms. (U.D. SALVI, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)