1 wp348.10.sxw ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 348 OF 2010 Ram Babu Mukane ..Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra & anr. ..Respondents Mr. Daulat G. Khamkar-advocate appointed for the petitioner. Mr. D.P.Adsule-APP for the State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR & P.D. KODE, JJ DATED :- OCTOBER 01, 2010. P.C. 1. This Petition is filed through jail. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the appropriate authority has wrongly opined that the deceased was murdered with premeditation by the Petitioner. It is next contended that the case of the Petitioner was considered for premature release in the year 2009. However, the authorities have failed to examine the case in the context of the norms and guidelines specified under Government Resolution dated 11th April, 2008. 2 wp348.10.sxw 2. Insofar as the first grievance is concerned, we find no reason to differ from the opinion recorded by the appropriate authority. That opinion is reinforced from the finding recorded by the High Court as well as the Sessions Court against the Petitioner. The only question is whether the Petitioner is entitled to get benefit of the guidelines of 2008. In the case of State of Haryana & ors. v/s. Jagdish reported in (2010) 4 SCC 216, the Apex Court in paragraph-54 has observed thus: “54. The State authority is under the obligation to at least exercise its discretion in relation to an honest expectation perceived by the convict, at the time of his conviction that his case for premature release would be considered after serving the sentence, prescribed in the short-sentencing policy existing on that date. The State has to exercise its power of remission also keeping in view any such benefit to be construed liberally in favour of a convict which may depend upon case to case and for that purpose, in our opinion, it should relate to a policy which, in the instant case, was in favour of the respondent. In case a liberal policy prevails o the date of consideration of the case of a “life” for premature release, he should be given benefit thereof.” In other words, the Petitioner is justified in contending that the appropriate authority failed to give benefit of the later guidelines to the Petition. Therefore, the decision will have to be set aside as it proceeds to consider the case of the Petitioner under the guidelines of 1999 and not that of 2008, which are more favourable to the Petitioner. 3 wp348.10.sxw 3. In the circumstances, the impugned decision is set aside. Instead, the appropriate authority is directed to reconsider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the guidelines of 2008. That be done as expeditiously as possible and in any case, not later than 8 weeks from receipt of the order of this Court. Petition disposed of accordingly. 4. Court expresses a word of gratitude for the able assistance given by the advocate appointed to espouse the cause of the Petitioner. 5. Copy of this order be forwarded forthwith to the Petitioner, who is in jai. (P.D. KODE, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)