CHANDAN ANADRAO RANGARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE returnable forthwith.

(2.) HEARD the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned A. P. P. for the respondents. The petitioner seeks direction to set him at liberty and to grant compensation. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted before us that the petitioner is only pressing the challenge on two points, viz. (i) The case of the petitioner is covered under Category 3 (b) of the Guidelines and as such, he has to serve only 22 years of imprisonment with remission, instead of 24, as ordered by the Government; (ii) The procedure followed in imposing punishment for overstay is irregular and arbitrary and the punishments imposed are liable to be set aside. The learned counsel has categorically stated that the petitioner does not dispute the dates and data given by the respondent regarding the remissions granted to the petitioner. The learned Advocate for the petitioner therefore, does not dispute the remissions at all.

(3.) IN support his first contention, he has submitted that there was no common intention or pre-meditation to commit the crime in question and that he has no previous criminal history and as such, his case falls under category 3 (b) of the Guidelines. Learned A. P. P. has, however, invited our attention to paragraph 35 of the judgment dated 31/10/1985 delivered by the Sessions Judge imposing sentence against the appellant. From the evidence on record, the learned Session Judge has held that the petitioner had a clear design to cause the death of the deceased. Thus, the Sessions judge has clearly come to a conclusion that the crime committed by the petitioner was pre-meditated. Hence we do not find any merit whatsoever in the aforesaid contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner.