RAMBHAU FAKIRAJI PANNASE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. MR. Bhat, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gavai, the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court acquitted the present petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 7, 12 an. d 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The State preferred an appeal against acquittal in this Court and this Court allowed the said appeal of the State and set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 7, 12 and 13 (2) of the Prevention of corruption Act, and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000. 00. The Counsel for the petitioner further contended that pursuant to the above referred judgment of this Court, the petitioner was sent to Central Prison, Nagpur, on 22-9-1993. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment and order of this Court, filed an appeal before the Supreme Court bearing No. 636 of 1995, which was admitted by the Apex Court and the petitioner, vide order, dated 27-9-1993, passed by the Supreme Court, was released on bail. The Apex Court, on 26-4-2001 dismissed the said appeal of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner was sent to Central Prison, Nagpur, on 8-6-2001.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that in the year 1997, the Government of Maharashtra issued Guidelines/notification on remission on account of completion of fifty years of independence, which is dated 6-8-1997, and bears No. R. T. P. 1097/1/47/prs-3. It is contended that though the Government has issued the above referred notification and respondents 2 and 3 extended benefit of these guidelines to other convicts in respect of remission, the same benefit is denied to the present petitioner only because the petitioner was awarded punishment under the Central Act. The relevant portion of the said Notification reads thus (though in the present case we are concerned with sub-clause (iii) :