- (1.) HEARD learned Coun sel for the parties.
(2.) BY means of this petition the petitioner prays for premature release under the provisions of U. P. Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1938. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basti, under Section 302, I. P. C. on 26- 1977 and was sentenced imprisonment for life in Ses sions Trial No. 253 of 1977. The appeal preferred by the appellant was also rejected by the Hon'ble High Court. It is not disputed that the petitioner has al ready served out sentence of more than 16 years with remission. And he is entitled to be considered for premature release under the Act. The petitioner, therefore, furnished Form-A for premature release. The Probation Officers, District Magistrate as well as Sr. Superintendent of Police submitted a report to the Proba tion Board for premature release of the petitioner and the matter was placed before the State Government but the State Government rejected the Form-A of the petitioner for premature release on the ground that District Magistrate has stated that, if, petitioner is released then there is every likelihood of repetition of crime and further is released then there is every likelihood of repetition of crime and further there is still likelihood of the ter ror in the village. The petitioner's counsel pointed put that the State without apply ing its mind rejected the Form-A on flimsy grounds. He pointed out that the District Magistrate in fact has recommended the premature release of the petitioner but the State wrongly made observation in the order that the District Magistrate has op posed the release. Form-A is on record. The District Magistrate in para 4 men tioned the following facts: The above mentioned facts itself shows that the District Magistrate has said "han" in reply to the fact that looking into the conduct of the petitioner in jail as well as outside, it is possible that he will not repeat his offence. Thereafter as regards the second part of the report as to whether there is likelihood of living peacefully, the reply of the District1 Magistrate is "sambhawana Hai". The above-men tioned facts itself shows that District Magistrate also recommended the prema ture release but the State has wrongly in terpreted the report submitted by the Dis trict Magistrate while rejecting the Form-A of the petitioner. The Board after con sidering all the aspect of the case including the conduct of the petitioner inside the jail as well as outside the jail recommended the premature release of the petitioner. In these circumstances, if, the State is not agreeing with the report submitted by the Probation Board then duty is cast on the State to furnish reasons in the order spe cially when this Court while deciding the Writ Petition No. 383 of 1996 (HC) directed the State to dispose or the petitioner's Form-A by speaking order. No doubt all the reports are in favour of the petitioner but we again quash the order dated 21 -6-1997 and direct the State to reconsider the Form-A and pass speak ing orders within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of State, dated 21- 6-1997 is quashed. Writ petition allowed. .;