Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Chintaman Sitaram Kedari, a life convict convicted under Sections 452, 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. He was arrested on 18th November 1995 and convicted by the Sessions Court, Raigad, sentenced to life imprisonment. The petitioner claimed that he had completed actual 14 years of sentence on 1st June 2010 and sought premature release, arguing that the co-accused, Shankar Ram Mhatre, was ordered to be released on completion of 14 years of actual imprisonment by the Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, on 4th January 2011. The petitioner relied on the decisions in Mahendra Tarachnd Varsale v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Criminal Writ Petition No. 996 of 1977 decided on December 15, 1997) and Laxman Shavaru Kale v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Criminal Writ Petition No. 1712 of 2010). The petition was filed on 19th July 2011, seeking a declaration that his continued detention from 5th January 2011 was illegal and unlawful, and for his release. However, on the same date, the Additional Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, reconsidered the petitioner's proposal and opined that the co-accused had completed 23 years and 8 months of sentence including remission, while the petitioner had undergone only 17 years, 11 months and 21 days of sentence including remission. As per Clause 4(b) of the Guidelines dated 15th March 2010, the petitioner could be considered for premature release only on completion of 22 years of sentence including remission. The Court noted that the co-accused was released because he had already completed 22 years of sentence including remission, whereas the petitioner had not. The Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Premature Release - Life Imprisonment - Remission - Guidelines dated 15th March 2010, Clause 4(b) - The petitioner, convicted under Sections 452, 302 read with 149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, sought premature release on parity with co-accused who was released after completing 22 years of sentence including remission. The Court held that the co-accused had completed 23 years and 8 months of sentence including remission, whereas the petitioner had undergone only 17 years, 11 months and 21 days of sentence including remission. As per Clause 4(b) of the Guidelines dated 15th March 2010, the petitioner could be considered for premature release only on completion of 22 years of sentence including remission. The Court found no illegality in the continued detention and dismissed the petition. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, a life convict, is entitled to premature release on the ground that the co-accused in the same case was released prematurely, and whether the continued detention of the petitioner is illegal and unlawful.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The Court found no illegality in the continued detention of the petitioner as he had not completed the required 22 years of sentence including remission as per Clause 4(b) of the Guidelines dated 15th March 2010.
Law Points
- Premature release
- life imprisonment
- remission
- guidelines for premature release
- parity with co-accused
- clause 4(b) of Guidelines dated 15th March 2010
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (11) 52
Criminal Writ Petition No. 2083 of 2011
A.M. Khanwilkar, P.D. Kode
Mr. N.N. Gavankar with Mr. Arfan Sait for the Petitioner, Mr. P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P., for the State
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Writ Petition seeking premature release from life imprisonment.
Remedy Sought
Declaration that continued detention of petitioner is illegal and unlawful from 5th January 2011, and direction to respondents to release the petitioner from prison forthwith.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed he completed 14 years of actual sentence and should be released prematurely on parity with co-accused who was released.
Previous Decisions
Co-accused Shankar Ram Mhatre was ordered to be released on completion of 14 years of actual imprisonment vide order dated 4th January 2011 by Home Department, Government of Maharashtra. The petitioner's proposal was reconsidered on 19th July 2011 and rejected as he had not completed 22 years of sentence including remission as per Clause 4(b) of Guidelines dated 15th March 2010.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to premature release on the ground of parity with the co-accused who was released prematurely?
Whether the continued detention of the petitioner is illegal and unlawful?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he completed actual 14 years of sentence on 1st June 2010 and should be released prematurely as per the dictum in Mahendra Tarachnd Varsale and Laxman Shavaru Kale, and because co-accused Shankar Ram Mhatre was released on completion of 14 years of actual imprisonment.
Respondent State argued that the co-accused had completed 23 years and 8 months of sentence including remission, whereas the petitioner had undergone only 17 years, 11 months and 21 days of sentence including remission. As per Clause 4(b) of Guidelines dated 15th March 2010, the petitioner could be considered for premature release only on completion of 22 years of sentence including remission.
Ratio Decidendi
A life convict can be considered for premature release only upon completion of the sentence period including remission as prescribed by the applicable guidelines. Parity with a co-accused who was released is not a valid ground if the petitioner has not completed the required sentence period including remission as per the guidelines.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner was arrested in connection with the said offence on 18th November, 1995.
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 4th January, 2011.
the Competent Authority, i.e., Additional Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, vide order dated 19th 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.
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 15th March, 2010.
Procedural History
The petitioner was arrested on 18th November 1995, convicted by Sessions Court, Raigad, and sentenced to life imprisonment. He filed a Criminal Writ Petition on 19th July 2011 seeking premature release. On the same date, the Additional Secretary, Home Department, reconsidered his proposal and rejected it. The petition was heard and dismissed on 9th November 2011.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 452, 302, 149
- Constitution of India: Article 226
