1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No. 544 of 2010 Punjab Vishram Ambhore ..VERSUS.. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Home Deptt., Mantrayalaya, Mumbai and another Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. Nilesh Samundre, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. T.A.Mirza, A.P.P. for the respondent/State. CORAM : Mrs.V.K.Tahilramani and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. DATED : 11 th March , 2011 . Heard Mr. Nilesh Samundre, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. T.A.Mirza, learned APP for the respondent/State. The main grievance of the petitioner was that though he has completed 14 years of actual imprisonment, yet he was not released as required under the guidelines for premature release, which have been framed by the Government. The learned APP stated that the petitioner has already been released from jail. In the present matter, this court by order dated 24/01/2011 gave directions to the Inspector General of Prisons, Maharashtra State, Pune to prepare a prison-wise list of prisoners, who were governed by 1978 guidelines and who are still in jail. This Court further directed that the cases of such prisoners should be sent to the Government for a decision in relation to their premature release. The report filed by the Inspector General of Prisons shows that said exercise has been carried out. It is noticed that the petitioner has already been released under the guidelines for premature release framed by the Government. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been 2 released as per 1992 guidelines and not as per 1978 guidelines, hence, he has prayed for compensation. As far as this aspect is concerned, we are not inclined to entertain the prayer for compensation in this petition as we are of the view that there were no malafides or negligence on the part of the authorities. The concerned authorities, while releasing the petitioner, have in good faith followed the 1992 guidelines because these guidelines state that they supersede the 1978 guidelines, hence, the concerned authorities were merely following the guidelines, therefore, we can find no fault on the part of the concerned authorities. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale