NIRANJAN DADARAO PUNWATKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A. P. P. for the State.

(2.) THE petitioner was tried in Sessions trial No. 422/1988 by the Sessions Judge, Nagpur for the charge of having committed an offence punishable under section 302 and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life on 8-9-1989 and since then the petitioner is in prison. Against his conviction and sentence the petitioner presented criminal Appeal No. 284/89 before the High Court which came to be dismissed on 5-4-1999.

(3.) THE petitioner addressed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India to the Registrar of the Supreme court of India, which has been placed before this Court for consideration and came to be registered as Criminal Writ petition No. 339/2000. The relief which the petitioner/prisoner is seeking is that his case should be considered for premature release by the respondent State. In the course of hearing of the petition, this Court on 22-2-2001, passed an order that the Competent Authority should take steps to refer the case of the prisoner to the Advisory board which is also sought to be modified by the respondent state, relying upon the letter dated 11th May, 1992 of the home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai in respect of the guidelines for premature release under the 14 Year Rule of prisoners serving life sentence after 18th December, 1978. Under the said letter, it has been made clear to the authorities under the Prison s Act, that while submitting cases of prisoners to the Government for review under the 14 year Rule on completion of 12 years of actual imprisonment the recommendations of the Advisory Board in such case, based on the guiding principles and the recommendations of the Inspector General of Prisons should invariably be submitted to the Government so that the case of the petitioner can be proposed for premature release in terms of the guidelines and, therefore, it is submitted that unless the prisoner undergoes actual imprisonment for a period of 12 years, his case cannot be proposed for consideration for the purpose of premature release and therefore, the Court s direction under its order dated 22-2-2001, will be a premature step.