- (1.) BY means of this peti tion, petitioner prays for premature release under the provisions of U. P. Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1938 and Rules (hereinafter referred to as Act and Rules, as the case may be) under U. P. Jail Manual.-
(2.) THE petitioner was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Sitapur on 12-11-1976 under Section 302, I. P. C. and was sentenced to imprisonment for life in Ses sions Trial No. 586 of 1975. THE conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Ses sions Judge, confirmed and the order be came final. According to the State, the petitioner has served out the sentence of 16years, 9 months and 24 days. Apart from this, he is also served out 1 year, 1 month and 13 days as under-trial. As petitioner became eligible for premature release under the said Act and, therefore he sub mitted Form-A to the State Government. THE State Government after considering the Form-A submitted by the petitioner passed the following order: From the perusal of the order it appears that the State had rejected the Form-A of the petitioner on the basis of report submitted by the Superintendent of Police. Here it may be pointed out that under the Probation Act a scheme has been formulated under which Probation Officer was also directed to submit his report after spot enquiry. The District Magistrate without any further enquiry agreed with the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police and opposed the premature release of the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police as well as the District Magistrate in their reports sub mitted that convict is a notorious criminal and if he is released then he will commit an offence again. There is no material on record to show as to on which basis this report was submitted. Apart from this the material itself shows that the noting of the Superintendent of Police mentioned above, is not correct. The Superintendent of Police in his report clearly submitted that there is nothing adverse against the petitioner and further there is no record at the police station as to whether petitioner has been released on parole or not. It is not disputed that the petitioner has been released on parole once and visited his house four times on home leave. It is also not disputed that no untowards incident took place in that period. There is nothing on record to show that convict was notorious type of criminal and that his jail conduct was also found satisfactory. In these circumstances, the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police is self con tradictory and further based on no material. The District Magistrate devoted his report without any material. Hence the same has also based on no evidence. The report submitted by the Probation Officer is also on record. The Probation Officer after collecting evidence and spot inspec tion submitted his report that in jail, the conduct of the petitioner was satisfactory Further, whenever he comes to his house no untowards incident took place. He fur ther pointed out that there is now no en mity between the petitioner's family and the deceased family and this fact found support from the enquiry conducted by the Probation Officer on the spot. He clearly mentioned that he made an enquiry from the members of the deceased family and on the basis of spot inspection, he submitted his report that the petitioner is entitled to the premature release under the Act. The State Government without considering the report submitted by the Probation Of ficer rejected the Form-A of the petitioner because the same was opposed by the Su perintendent of Police without looking into the matter that the same is not based on any evidence. It is also the duty of the State to consider all the reports and materials placed before it. The State could not pass order on the basis of report sub mitted by the Superintendent of Police ignoring the other reports including the report submitted by the Probation Officer. The State is also bound to give cogent reason if the State does not agree with the report submitted by the Probation Officer. As the State has not considered the report submitted by the Probation Officer, there fore, the order impugned dated 30-6-1994 rejecting the Form-A submitted by the petitioner is vitiated under law and the same is hereby quashed. The State Government is directed to consider again and pass orders in accordance with law within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. With these observation, petition is disposed of finally. Petition disposed of. .;