Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Prashant Samar Mazi, was convicted for murder on 23rd November 2006 and was incarcerated at Kolhapur Central Prison. He filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 17th November 2017, which categorized him under Category 3(b) of the 2010 Guidelines and placed him in the 26-year category. The petitioner contended that this categorization was based on a similar order dated 18th August 2016 passed in the case of a co-convict, which was not passed after due application of mind. He argued that as per settled law, the guidelines prevailing at the time of conviction (1992 Guidelines) or the 2010 Guidelines, if more beneficial, should apply. Specifically, he submitted that the State Government erred in invoking Guideline 3(d) of the 1992 Guidelines, whereas Guideline 3(e) ought to have been used. The learned APP relied on a judgment dated 29th July 2013 in Criminal Appeal 582 of 2007, which upheld the conviction, to argue that Guideline 3(d) was appropriate. The APP also submitted that Guideline 5 of the 1992 Guidelines, concerning professional criminals, was not applicable as the petitioner was not recognized as a professional criminal. The Court, after hearing both sides, found that the impugned order did not reflect proper application of mind and that the categorization needed reconsideration. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the State Government to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner, applying the correct guideline from either the 1992 or 2010 Guidelines, whichever is more beneficial. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Remission Guidelines - Categorization of Convicts - Murder Conviction - The petitioner, convicted for murder on 23rd November 2006, challenged his categorization under Category 3(b) of the 2010 Guidelines and the 26-year category, arguing that the State Government erroneously applied Guideline 3(d) of the 1992 Guidelines instead of Guideline 3(e). The Court held that the matter required reconsideration by the State Government, as the impugned order did not reflect proper application of mind and the appropriate guideline needed to be determined afresh. (Paras 1-4)
B) Remission Guidelines - Application of Beneficial Guidelines - The Court noted the settled law that if the 2010 Guidelines are more beneficial to the convict, they should apply. The State Government was directed to reconsider the categorization after hearing the petitioner, applying the correct guideline from either the 1992 or 2010 Guidelines, whichever is more beneficial. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the categorization of the petitioner-convict under Category 3(b) of the 2010 Guidelines and the 26-year category was correct, and whether the State Government erred in applying Guideline 3(d) of the 1992 Guidelines instead of Guideline 3(e).
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 17th November 2017 is set aside. The State Government is directed to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner, applying the correct guideline from either the 1992 or 2010 Guidelines, whichever is more beneficial. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- Remission guidelines
- categorization of convicts
- murder conviction
- 1992 Guidelines
- 2010 Guidelines
- application of beneficial guidelines
Case Details
Criminal Writ Petition No.605 of 2019
B. P. Dharmadhikari, Prakash D. Naik
Mr.S.R. Nargolkar (for Petitioner), Mr.Arfan Sait (APP for Respondent-State)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Writ Petition challenging categorization of convict under remission guidelines
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order dated 17th November 2017 categorizing him under Category 3(b) of 2010 Guidelines and 26-year category, and direction to re-categorize him correctly
Filing Reason
Petitioner contended that the impugned order was based on a similar order for a co-convict without due application of mind, and that the State Government erroneously applied Guideline 3(d) of 1992 Guidelines instead of Guideline 3(e)
Previous Decisions
The petitioner was convicted on 23rd November 2006; the conviction was upheld by this Court in Criminal Appeal 582 of 2007 on 29th July 2013; an order dated 18th August 2016 was passed in the case of a co-convict which influenced the impugned order
Issues
Whether the categorization of the petitioner under Category 3(b) of the 2010 Guidelines and the 26-year category was correct?
Whether the State Government erred in applying Guideline 3(d) of the 1992 Guidelines instead of Guideline 3(e)?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that as per settled law, the guidelines prevailing at the time of conviction (1992 Guidelines) or the 2010 Guidelines, if more beneficial, should apply; the State Government erred in invoking Guideline 3(d) of 1992 Guidelines, whereas Guideline 3(e) ought to have been used.
Respondent-State relied on the judgment in Criminal Appeal 582 of 2007 upholding the conviction to argue that Guideline 3(d) was appropriate; submitted that Guideline 5 of 1992 Guidelines (professional criminals) was not applicable as the petitioner was not recognized as a professional criminal.
Ratio Decidendi
The categorization of a convict under remission guidelines must be based on proper application of mind and the correct guideline applicable to the nature of the offence; if later guidelines are more beneficial, they should apply. The impugned order did not reflect due application of mind and required reconsideration.
Judgment Excerpts
Perused the impugned order dated 17th November, 2017, which categorize petitioner in Category 3(b) of 2010 Guidelines and puts him in 26 years category.
In this backdrop, advocate Nargolkar submits that as per settled law, as the prisoner has been convicted on 23rd November, 2006, Guidelines then prevailing framed in the year 1992 or then guidelines of 2010, if later are more beneficial, must apply.
Learned APP, on the other hand relies upon the judgment dated 29th July, 2013, delivered by this Court in Criminal Appeal 582 of 2007, upholding the conviction, to urge that Guidelines 3(d) is an apt provision.
Procedural History
The petitioner was convicted on 23rd November 2006. The conviction was upheld by the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal 582 of 2007 on 29th July 2013. An order dated 18th August 2016 was passed in the case of a co-convict. The impugned order dated 17th November 2017 categorized the petitioner under Category 3(b) of the 2010 Guidelines and the 26-year category. The petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No.605 of 2019 challenging the impugned order. The petition was heard and disposed of on 11th April 2019.
