2024:BHC-AS:33213-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY MANDIRA MILIND DMiIgLitINalDy SsiAgLnGedA ObNy KMAARNDIRA SALGAONKAR D+a0t5e3: 02024.08.20 16:46:25 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2312 OF 2024 Sachin Manohar Khambe .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent …

Dr.Yug Mohit Chaudhry with Mr.Anush Shetty for the Petitioner.

Ms.Sharmila S. Kaushik, A.P.P. for the State/Respondent.

...

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &

MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATED : 08th AUGUST, 2024 JUDGMENT (PER BHARATI DANGRE, J.) :-

1. The Petitioner/Convict, who has undergone 22 years and 1 month of actual imprisonment and over 28 years and 8 months of imprisonment, including remission, has filed the present Petition praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 19/01/2024, passed by the State Government, thereby categorising him in clause 6(c) of the 2010 Guidelines and seeking a direction that instead, he deserve categorisation under clause 3(d) of the 1992 Guidelines, in regard to the punishment of life imprisonment imposed upon him on being found guilty of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 and/or read with Section 120-B of IPC in MCOC Special Case No.13 of 2000.

2. We heard Dr.Yug Mohit Chaudhry for the Petitioner, who has invited our attention to the factual background in which the relief in the Petition is sought by the Petitioner.

Ms.Kaushik, the learned A.P.P. represent the State.

3. By consent of the above counsel, we issue ‘Rule’ and have taken the Writ Petition for final hearing.

On assimilating the facts, it has become evident to us that the Petitioner is convicted in two MCOC cases i.e. MCOC Spl.Case No.13 of 2000 and MCOC Spl.Case No.01 of 2010. In MCOC Spl.Case No.13 of 2000, he faced the trial as accused No.2 and by Judgment dated 30^th/31^st December, 2002, he stood convicted alongwith the co-accused, for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and/or read with Section 120-B of IPC and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In addition, he also stand convicted under the Arms Act and is sentenced accordingly.

The above judgment is upheld by the High Court on

25/01/2007 in Criminal Appeal No.216 of 2003, when the Court arrived at the conclusion that the Trial Court was justified in finding the Appellant guilty of committing the murder of Ziauddin, by using the firearm and finding no merit in the Appeal, the same was dismissed.

4. While in custody, in the first MCOC Special Case, he came to be arrested and faced MCOC Special Case No.1 of 2010, being charged as Accused No.3 alongwith three other accused persons.

He faced the charge under Sections 307, 387, 120(B), 379, 465, 471 read with Sections 34, 109 of IPC alongwith the provisions of the Arms Act as well as the Bombay Police Act and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the MCOC Act.

The Special Judge, by Judgment dated 26^th & 27^th August, 2014 found him guilty for committing the offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC and he was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.50,000/- alongwith accused Nos.1 and 2. In addition, he was also convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 109 of IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years.

The Special Judge, who tried him in the second case, being conscious of his first conviction, specifically directed as under :-

“14. The sentence of accused No.3 shall run concurrently with his previous conviction in terms of Section 427(2) of Cr.P.C. from the date of his arrest in this case i.e. from 23/12/2009.”

5. The Petitioner filed writ petition before this Court, which was numbered as Writ Petition No.894 of 2021, wherein he prayed for his categorisation, as the State Government had refused to categorise him and grant the benefit of remission and it was contended that merely because the case was fi