Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Murlidhar Ramchandra Bhalerao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 November, 2018
Bench: N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
SLP( Crl.)…...D.No.37634/18 1
ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) ………………..Diary No(s).37634/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03-05-2005
in CRLA No.244/2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay at Nagpur)
MURLIDHAR RAMCHANDRA BHALERAO Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.151368/2018-CONDONATION OF DELAY
IN FILING)
Date : 12-11-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
For Petitioner(s) Mrs.Revathy Raghavan, AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
Delay of 4813 days in filing the special leave petition is condoned.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already undergone 15 years of actual sentence. It is surprising that even though the petitioner has Signature Not Verified undergone 15 years of actual sentence, the State has not considered Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2018.11.14 16:53:51 IST Reason: the case of the petitioner for premature release, nor the petitioner has made any representation to the State. SLP( Crl.)…...D.No.37634/18 2
Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, we direct the petitioner to make a representation to the Government of Maharashtra seeking remission in accordance with the Rules applicable to the State of Maharashtra and the provisions of Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Upon making such representation by the petitioner, the Government of Maharashtra is directed to consider the same within a period of two months in accordance with the Remission Rules of the Government of Maharashtra, and keeping in view the provisions of Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if he is not required in any other case.
With the aforesaid observations, without going into the merits of the case, we dispose of this petition.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (RAJ RANI NEGI)
AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR