RAVINDRA SHANTARAM SAWANT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the order dated 08.02.2010 passed by the Government of Maharashtra, through its Home Department, invoking its powers under Section 432 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code"), thereby directing that the petitioner be released after completion of 30 years of imprisonment along with all remissions earned by him and to remit the portion of the sentence of imprisonment of life in excess of 30 years.

(2.) THE petitioner was convicted in TADA Special Case No.31/1994 by the Designated Court and for the offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(ii), 5 & 6 of Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short, "TADA") and Section 307 of Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC"), Section 25 (1B)(a) and Section 27 of Indian Arms Act as well as Section 333 of IPC. He was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment on different counts. On 28.08.2008, the State Government passed an order under Section 432 of the Code and directed that the petitioner shall be released after completion of 30 years of imprisonment along with remissions earned by him and to remit the portion of the sentence of imprisonment of life in excess of 30 years. THE said order was challenged in Criminal Writ Petition No.1356/2008. THE said petition was decided on 21.08.2008 and the order dated 21.08.2008 was set aside, with further directions to the State Government to reconsider the matter. THE State Government passed fresh order on 23.10.2008 and it came to be challenged in Writ Petition No. 2598/2008 and the petition was allowed and the impugned order dated 23.10.2008 was set aside. A fresh order of granting remission was passed on 27.01.2009, but the total period of 30 years was maintained and, therefore, in the third round Criminal Writ Petition No.207/2009 was filed by the petitioner which was again allowed by the Division Bench by its judgment dated 03.08.2009 and the impugned order dated 27.01.2009 was set aside. THE State Government was directed to reconsider the issue afresh in the light of the observations made in the aid judgment. THE petitioner in the fourth round came in Criminal Writ Petition No.2333/2009 before this Court raising the ground that inspite of the earlier directions dated 03.08.2009, his case was not considered and it was pending. THE learned PP had assured the Court that the petitioner's case would be decided within two weeks and by noting down the assurance, the petition was disposed off on 08.09.2009. In the fifth round, as the fresh order was not passed, the petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No.251/2010 and while it was pending, the impugned order dated 08.02.2010 came to be passed and, thus, Criminal Writ Petition No.251/2010 became infructuous. It was therefore disposed off as such on 22.02.2010.

(3.) THE State Government has filed an affidavit in reply, through the Principal Secretary, Home Department and has opposed the petition. It is submitted that after Criminal Writ Petition No.207/2009 filed by the petitioner was decided by this Court on 03.08.2009, his case was reconsidered in exercise of the powers under Section 432 of the Code and the guidelines laid down in the State Government's letter dated 16111978 for his premature release. In normal circumstances the guidelines framed on 11.05.1992 are followed, but did not provide a specific category convicted under the Special Act such as TADA. As such, the guidelines framed on 11.05.1992 could not be made applicable to the petitioner's case. It is further pointed out that his case has been considered independently and mainly keeping in mind the observations made by the Supreme Court while dismissing Criminal Appeal No.230/1997 on 08.05.2002. It is further pointed out that the said observations made by the Supreme Court were not considered by this Court while allowing Criminal Writ Petition No.207/2009.