- (1.) THE petitioner filed this petition challenging the order dated 10-12-1998 by which the petitioner's ap plication for premature release was rejected by the State Government on the ground that in spite of the specific direc tions, State Government failed to con sider the report of the probation Board and had rejected the Premature release of the petitioner on the recommendation of the District Magistrate and the Superin tendent of Police.
(2.) IT is not disputed that the petitioner is eligible for premature release under U. P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938. IT is also not disputed that he has served out the requisite sentence as provided under the Act. Initially the petitioner filed a writ petition (writ peti tion No. 441 (H/c) of 1995) for premature release on the ground that he had already served out the sentence as provided under the Act but the State Gov. did not consider his premature release, then this Court by order dated 31-10-1995 directed the State Government to consider the question of petitioner's release on licence within a period of three months from the date or receipt of the copy of the order. As the petitioner was not released, therefore, he filed another writ petition (W. P. No. 708 (H. C) of 1996) and in the said writ petition it was brought to our notice that at the time of disposal of earlier writ petitions, the petitioner had not served out the mini mum sentence provided under the Act but due to mistake, statement was given that he had served out the minimum sentence provided under Act. However, at the time of decision of the second writ petition on 19-8-1998 the petitioner had served out the minimum sentence provided under Act, therefore, we disposed of the said writ petition directing the State Government to dispose of the petitioner's premature release application within four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, the State Government dis posed of the application on the basis of the report submitted the the District Magis trate and the Superintendent of Police and rejected the application of the petitioner for premature release on 10-12- 1998. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the State had rejected the application of the petitioner for premature release because District Magistrate as well as the Superintendent of Police opposed the release of the petitioner. In the instant case, the Proba tion Board, after considering the reports submitted by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police as well as spot enquiry recommended the premature release of the petitioner. The Probation Board has considered all the papers in detail and thereafter submitted report on 28-11-1998 (sic) Act. The Board was authorised to submit a report and there fore, at the time of consideration of the application of the petitioner for prema ture release, it was necessary for the State to consider the recommendation of the Board and thereafter pass an order. It is not disputed that the report submitted by the District Magistrate as well as the Superintendent of Police has already been considered by the Board and there for, it will be proper for the State Govt. to consider the report of the Board and if the State is not agreeable with the recommendation of the Board then reject the application after giving cogent reason.
(3.) IN the instant case, the petitioner's application for premature release was rejected because the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police had op posed his premature release and in these circumstances, the impugned order is on the face of it not sustainable. The order dated 10-12-1998 passed by the State Government rejecting the application Form-A of the petitioner for premature release is quashed and the State Govern ment is directed to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after considering the report submitted by the Probation Board within one month from the date of receipt o f copy of this order. A certified copy of this order be given to the petitioner's counsel on payment of usual charges within a week. Petition allowed. .;