- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learner Government Advocate.
(2.) THE petitioner was convicted on 18-2-1976 under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Ac cording to the counter-affidavit filed, he has already undergone 15 years 5 months and 28 days actual imprisonment and 20 years 10 months and 27 days with remis sion. THE counter-affidavit is dated 27-5-1998. Petitioner's Form-A for premature release was rejected as far back as on 13-5-1998. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has prayed that a fresh Form-A should now be supplied to the petitioner. He has also pointed out that the petitioner has lost vision in one of his eyes and the vision of the other eye of the petitioner is also deteriorating last and that the petitioner undertakes to lead a peaceful life in case he is released on licence. It has further been averred in the writ petition that the petitioner has suitable guardians who are solvent and who can take care of the petitioner and that when the petitioner went on home leave he did not misuse his temporary liberty. Learned Government Advocate has pointed out that by virtue of Rule 3 (c) of the U. P. Prisoners' Release on Proba tion Rules, if once Form-A of the petitioner has been rejected, he cannot claim as of right his release under the said Rules and now no fresh Form-A can be issued to him. We have given our anxious con sideration to the entire facts of the case and the other material placed before us. The fact remains that petitioner's Form-A was rejected more than ten years hence. Much water has flown since then. So far as clause (c) of Rule 3 of the Rules is con cerned, Explanation appended to said Rule states: "the rule is clause (c) precludes a convict from himself applying, a second time for release under Section 2 of the Act, but the State Government may direct the Inspector General of Prison to place any case, which has already been once rejected for re-consideration before the Board referred to in sub rule (5) of Rule 6"
(3.) THUS, it cannot be disputed that the State Government can instruct the Inspec tor General of Prisons to place before the Board case of such prisoner whose Form-A has once been rejected. In view of the fact that more than ten years have already passed since rejection of petitioner's Form-A and allegation of loss of eye-sight of one of the eyes of the petitioner and the diminishing vision of the other eye of the petitioner, we consider it necessary to bring it to the notice of the Slate Govern ment to consider whether the Govern ment should take action under Section to Rule 3 (c) of the said Rules. Accordingly this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction that a copy of this order shall be sent to the State Government as early as possible and the State Government may consider release of the petitioner as provided in Explanation to Rule 3 (c) of the U. P Prisoners' Release on Probation Rules. As soon as the State Government takes a decision, it shall con vey the same to the petitioner. Copy of this order be supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner so also learned Govt. advocate on payment of usual charges as early as possible. Petition allowed. .;