CHINTAMAN SITARAM KEDARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the convict, who is in jail in connection with offence punishable under Sections 452, 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, undergoing term of life imprisonment. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the said offence on 18 th November, 1995. He was convicted by the Sessions Court, Raigad, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. According to the petitioner, he has completed actual 14 years of sentence on 1 st June, 2010. His request for premature release should have been granted by the Authorities, more so because the co-accused in the same case, Shankar Ram Mhatre, was ordered to be released on completion of 14 years of actual imprisonment vide order passed by the Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, dated 4 th January, 2011.

(2.) Considering the limited controversy brought before us, it is not necessary to advert to other factual matrix leading to the filing of this petition. The petition, filed on 19 th July, 2011, was primarily based on the ground that the petitioner should also have been released prematurely as ordered in the case of co-accused, Shankar Ram Mhatre, following the dictum of this Court in the case of Mahendra Tarachnd Varsale v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. in Criminal Writ Petition No. 996 of 1977 decided on December 15, 1997, which was followed in the case of Laxman Shavaru Kale v. State of Maharahstra & Anr. in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1712 of 2010.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the principle stated in the above-stated decisions applies on all fours to the case of the petitioner. However, it is noticed that, on the date on which this petition was filed praying for declaration that the continued detention of the petitioner is illegal and unlawful on and from 5 th January, 2011 and for which reason, the respondents should be ordered to release the petitioner from prison forthwith, the Competent Authority, i..e, Additional Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, vide order dated 19 th July, 2011, re-considered the proposal of the petitioner and opined that, as regards the case of co-accused, Shankar Ram Mhatre, he had already completed 23 years and 8 months of sentence, including remission, whereas the petitioner has undergone only 17 years, 11 months and 21 days of sentence, including remission. Further, the petitioner can be considered for premature release on completion of 22 years of sentence, including remission, as per clause 4(b) of the Guidelines dated 15 th March, 2010. In other words, the co-accused was ordered to be released, as he had already completed 22 years of sentence period, including remission, in connection with the said offence. As a result of this order, the petitioner has amended the petition, and has now prayed for quashing and setting aside the said order dated 19 th July, 2011 on the further grounds incorporated in the Writ Petition.