- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate.
(2.) RAM Kumar has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking his premature release on license. The petitioner was convicted on 27-3-1976 by the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow, under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life by order passed in Sessions Trial No. 17-A/75. Petitioner's Form-A for his release on licence was rejected and the petitioner filed writ petition No. 368/97 before this Court. A copy of the judgment passed in Writ petition No. 368/97 has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The writ Petition was disposed on 9-1-1998 and the order dated 29-1- 1997 of the State Government rejecting petitioner's Form-A was quashed. The Court further directed the State Government to reconsider the release of the petitioner in accordance with law by a speaking order. The Court observed: "petitioner's Form-A was submitted and on the said Form-A the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police endorsed their views. Finally the matter was placed before the Probation Board and the Probation Board in its recommendation, recommended the case of the petitioner for premature release. The report of the Probation Board is as follows. 'from a perusal of the report it is evident that the Probation Board considered each and every aspect of the matter including the reports submitted by the District Magistrate as well as the Superintendent of Police and after carefully considering the said reports, recommended the case of the petitioner for premature release. The report submitted by the Probation Board is based on reasons but the petitioner's premature release was rejected by the State Government vide order dated 29-1-1997. The State Govern ment rejected the premature release of the petitioner on the ground that the District Proba tion Officer, in his report, has pointed out that the petitioner is a man of mischievous character and is violent. The District Magistrate also stated in his report that there is no likelihood of petitioner's living peacefully and the Superin tendent of police has also opposed the prema ture release. However, the State Government has not considered the report of the Probation Officer which was submitted after consider all the aspects of the case including the reports submitted by the District Probation Officer and those of the District Magistrate and the Super intendent of Police. The Probation Board has also given cogent reasons in support of its recommendations and, therefore, it was the duty of the State Government to have con sidered the said report and should have recorded reasons if the State Government was not agreeable with the said recommendations of the Probation Board. Instead of considering the said recommendations of the Probation Board and giving reasons, the State Government has rejected the petitioner's Form-'a overlooking the recommendations of the Probation Officer and passed its order on the basis of individual reports submitted by the District Probation Of ficer, the District Magistrate and the Superin tendent of Police. " (The underlining has been done by us) In pursuance of this Court order dated 9-1-1998, the State Government again considered and rejected the Form-A of the petitioner by an order dated 4-3-1998. A copy of the said order dated 4-3-1998 has been annexed with the counter-affidavit filed by the State. It appears that the State Government decided the Form-A of the petitioner on the basis of materials already available before it when the, first order rejecting the Form-A was passed. We have perused the order dated 4-3-1998 and the relevant portion of the order reads as under:
(3.) THE order of the State Govern ment shows that it has not considered the report of Probation Board and has gone on the report of Probation Officer. While quoting the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 368 of 1998, we have underlined the words "probation Officer". In fact the words should have been "proba tion Board" as is clear from the context and the word "officer" is an inadvertent mistake. It appears that in taking its decision the State Government also fell into error due to the above mistake. THE Form-A of the petitioner was earlier rejected on 29-1-1997 i. e. about 1 years and 10 months ago from now. In the fit ness of things the State Government may obtain fresh report of the Probation Of ficer and then disposed of the matter pertaining to Form-A afresh in the light of the fresh report of the Probation Officer as well as the report of Probation Board. Accordingly, we quash the order of the State Government dated 4-3-1998 rejecting the Form-A of the petitioner and dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the State Government to consider Form-A of the petitioner afresh after ob taining the report of Probation Officer and Probation Board afresh. The State Government shall dispose of the Form-A of the petitioner within 4 months from" the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Copy of this order may be given to the learned Counsel for the petitioner on pay ment of Usual charges and also to the Government Advocate as early as pos sible. Petition allowed. .;