Sunil vs State Of Maharashtra And Others

Sunil B. Shukre, J

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is otherwise eligible for getting the remission in sentence as per the terms and conditions of Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017. The only obstacle in his way to get the benefit of Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017 is adverse opinion recorded by the concerned Sessions Court.

In the opinion of the concerned Sessions Court, the petitioner is not entitled to receive the remission in his sentence in terms of the Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017, because as per year 2011 guidelines, the petitioner is required to undergo minimum 24 years of imprisonment, and it is also so as per the guidelines contained in Government Resolution dated 11.04.2008 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in Criminal Appeal Nos.490-491 of 2011 decided on 20.11.2012.

Insofar as the guidelines of the years 2008 and 2011 are concerned and also the decision given in the Criminal Appeal Nos.490-491 of 2011 is concerned, there can be no second opinion. The petitioner would be required to undergo the imprisonment for the years stated in these guidelines. But, it appears to us that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who has signed his opinion as District Judge-1, has not considered the fact that the remission in sentence afforded by the Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017 is special kind of remittance and it is over and above the normal guidelines. This remission in sentence has been given by the State of Maharashtra as a mark of respect and in order to pay tribute to the great work done by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and this remission has been given to celebrate 125 Birth Anniversary of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, which has been declared as “Samata Varsh” (Equality Year).

The maximum period of remission is of three months and minimum period is of seven days as per the Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017. Such remission in sentence being of special nature, it would have to be given its due effect in law, considering the same to be in addition to the other remissions in sentence available to a prisoner like the petitioner.

We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in law and facts in giving his opinion and this is a fit case for issuing appropriate directions for giving benefit of special remission in sentence to the petitioner.

The petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be granted benefit of Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017, in accordance with law, at the earliest.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

The legal remuneration of Rs.7,000/- be paid to learned counsel (appointed) for the petitioner.