ABDUL KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. 2. Though this petition has been filed by petitioner Abdul Khan alone whose request for his release prematurely under the provisions of Rajasthan Prisoners (Shortening of Sentence) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958') was rejected by the State Government vide order dated 19. 3. 2008, but after going through the contents of Annex. 2, the recommendations sent by the Advisory Board to the State Government on the matter of release of convicts namely, Mukesh s/o Roop Chand, Roop Chand s/o Gokul Chand, Ramesh s/o Roop Chand, Amariya @ Amra s/o Baja Ram, Kailash s/o Nanag Ram and Abdul Khan s/o Subhan Khan, we are of the view that the entire matter is required to be considered by this Bench in the interest of justice. 3. The prayer of shortening of sentence under the Rules of 2006 of all above convicts has been rejected by order dated 19. 3. 2008. We would like to quote the recommendations made by the Advisory Board for each of the accused as well as the reason given for rejection of their prayer for shortening of sentence passed by the State Government, which are as under :- ....Vernacular Text Ommited....

(2.) ....Vernacular Text Ommited.... 4. We may specifically point out that Mukesh was 10th fail student and while undergoing the sentence, he passed B. A. (Arts ). He completed computer course, house repairing course and fan repairing course during his sentence period. He worked all allotted work in jail with devotion and with full rigor as found by the Advisory Board. In the year 2003, it appears that he was given appreciation letter also. During sentence period, he undertook Vipasyana Sadhna, Yoga, Art of Living, Osho Meditation etc. He also worked during gazetted holidays. All the facts recorded above were noticed by the Advisory Board and brought to the knowledge of the State Government in writing by sending the recommendation which is duly signed by not less than a person like Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur as well as Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur along with non-government member. For this, the State Government could notice (from where not disclosed in the order) only that said Mukesh s/o Roop Chand did not do the work in the work shop and he deliberately remained absent from the work shop. His working was not exemplary or good. 5. Almost same is position of the case of convict Roop Chand. Convict Roop Chand entered in prison when he was student of Class 10th (failed ). He did his first year of Bachelor's degree course. He also worked hard in jail and with devotion. His work was duly appreciated by giving appreciation of 10 days. He took part in all activities as convict Mukesh. 6. It appears that the same is the position for all cases and there is total non-application of mind on the part of the State Government in all matters which were under consideration for taking decision for so many convicts. If it is not so, then what was the material before the State Government for holding so, so as to contradict the report of the Advisory Board and if the report of the Advisory Board was wrong about the convicts, then it is more serious matter and it cast serious doubt on the working of the Advisory Board itself. Whether in such circumstances, the State Government was not under obligation to contradict the facts mentioned in the report of Advisory Board and it was the duty of the Government to give true facts in the order so the convict could know that the decision for liberty of a person has been taken not by 'cut paste' or 'copy paste' method (a more opted method in place of 'mechanical method') and the order has been passed after application of mind. 7. So far as the petitioner is concerned, for him, the Advisory Board was of the view that he gave his all support for all allotted work during his sentence period. After considering all material available with Advisory Board, the Advisory Board was of the opinion that the convict deserves to be released prematurely. For the petitioner, the State Government in its impugned order dated 19. 3. 2008 mentioned that the accused along with six other persons committed murder of one Kumbha Ram and he did not do his all allotted work. In fact, he voluntarily absented from the work. His work during sentence was not good. The fact mentioned in the order of the State Government runs contrary to the facts mentioned in the report of the Advisory Board. As noticed above, the reason for rejection of premature release for all the accused is same-