Remanded

Ajju Ijaj Id Mohammad v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Apr 2010WP/2045/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, convicted in 1996 and covered by 1992 guidelines, sought premature release under 2008 guidelines. Relying on a 2010 precedent, the court held bankruptcy rules apply to the date of conviction. It set aside the 2008 order and directed a fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

set aside the order dated 31.5.2008 and directed the concerned authority to pass a fresh order on the application for premature release within eight weeks.

Ajju Ijaj Id Mohammad Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

5w2045-09 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2045 OF 2009

¶4

Ajju Ejaz Id Mohammad. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent.

¶5

Mr.A.N. Katangale, Advocate appointed for the Petitioner. Mr.S.N. Gawade, A.P.P., for the Respondent State. Mr.R.I. Giri, Section Officer, Home Dept., Mantralaya, Mumbai present inperson.

¶6

CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & A.R.JOSHI, JJ.

¶7

DATED : 6TH APRIL, 2010

¶8

P.C.

¶9

In this Petition, through jail, the petitioner is seeking

¶10

benefit of the guidelines dated 11.4.2008. The petitioner was convicted on 22.7.1993 and in view thereof according to the respondents he is covered by the guidelines dated 11.5.1992. The learned APP has placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court dated 8.2.2010 in Writ Petition No.3320 of 2009 (Shankar Dhaktya Rinjad Vs. The State of Maharashtra), wherein this Court held that the date of conviction is relevant for application of the guidelines. In that case the petitioner was convicted in 1996 and, therefore, it was held that he was covered by the guidelines dated

¶11

5w2045-09 2

¶12

11.5.1992 and that he was not entitled for the benefits of the guidelines dated 11.4.2008. The relevant paragraphs of the order of this Court dated 8.2.2010 in Writ Petition No.3320 of 2009 read thus :

¶13

" This petition is sent through jail. The petitioner was convicted on 6/8/1996. As of today he has completed about more than 19 years in jail including remissions . Vide order dated 11/9/2009 he has been categorized as falling in 1e ,as per guidelines dated 11/5/1992. He has prayed that his category may be decided by following the guidelines dated 11/4/2008. That prayer cannot be entertained in view of judgment of this Court in 2009 ALL MR Cri. 524 (S.C.) State of Haryana Vs. Bhup Singh & Ors .; where the Supreme Court has taken a view that the right to ask for remission of sentence by a life convict would be under the law as was prevailing on the date on which the judgment of conviction and sentence was passed.

¶14

2] The petitioner was convicted on 6/8/1996 and hence his case is covered by guidelines dated 11/5/1992.The respondent has made the said guidelines applicable to him.

¶15

In the circumstances, the learned APP submits that the order dated 31.5.2008 may be set aside and the concerned

¶16

5w2045-09 3

¶17

authority may be allowed to pass fresh order in view of the order passed by this Court dated 8.2.2010 in Writ Petition No.3320 of 2009.

¶18

This position of law has not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the circumstances, we set aside the order dated 31.5.2008, and direct the concerned authority to pass fresh order on the application made by the petitioner seeking his premature release, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is needless to state that the concerned authority shall communicate the order to the petitioner forthwith.

¶19

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.

¶20

(A.R.JOSHI,J.)

Ajju Ijaj Id Mohammad v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajju Ijaj Id Mohammad v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Baburaso Chaugule Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hanumant Devidas Bansode Vs the Senior Inspector of Police and Ors.

Shatrughna Pandurang Mazgaokar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sairam Co-Operaive Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Syed Minhajulla Hussani and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Noorulhudha Samsudoha and Anr. Vs Rajwardhan and Ors.