V.S.KOKJE, J. - (1.) The petitioner is a convict under going life sentence in Central jail Bikaner. According to him, he has served over 22 years sentence so far. He had filed a criminal writ petition No. 523/92 in the Supreme Court of India. The petition was dismissed, but a direction to the Govt. to re-consider the premature release of the petitioner after a period of one year from the date of the order i.e. 16-8-1993 was issued. The petitioner filed D. B. C. writ petition (Habeas Corpus) No. 3985/93 in this Court complaining that the Supreme Court's direction had not been carried out. Following order was passed disposing of that case on 22-8-1994. "Mr. Bhandawat is directed to accept summons on behalf of State Govt. In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and gave direction that his case be reconsidered for release after expiry of one year. The petitioner having been convicted under Section 397 I.P.C. along with 302 I.P.C. the Advisory Board declined to consider the case for pre-mature release because the case is not covered by Rule 9(1) of the Raj Prisons (Shortening of sentences) Rules, 1958 but the petitioner is entitled for the consideration of his case for release in pursuance of direction of their lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court under Rule 135 of the Raj Prisons Rules, 1951 and accordingly Mr. S. S. Bhandawat has no objection if a direction is issued by this Court that his case be considered for submission to the Govt. within a period of 2 months from today. The Govt. is directed to decide the case of the petitioner for release after due consideration within 3 months thereafter. The directions are accordingly issued and habeas corpus petition stands disposed of, Copy of the order be sent to Supdt. of Police, Central Jail, Bikaner and Home Secretary Jaipur for necessary compliance." The petitioner contended that in obedience of the order of the Supreme Court and the High Court meeting of Advisory Board was convened on 4-10-94 at Bikaner and in that meeting the Advisory Board recommended for the premature release of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that in view of this recommendation he should have been released under Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 1958. The petitioner also submits that he is entitled to be released under R. 135 of the Rajasthan Prisons Rules, 1951 also on the basis of the Advisory Board's recommendation.
(2.) The respondents have denied the fact that the Advisory Board has recommended the premature release of the petitioner. In paragraph 8A of the reply to the amended writ petition it has been categorically denied that State Govt. had rejected the recommendation of the Advisory Board. It was contended that infact the petitioner's case was not considered by the Advisory Board nor its recommendations were sent to the State Govt. It is concluded that as per the order of the High Court the case of the petitioner was sent to the State Govt. through the Inspector General of Prisons under Para 135 of para 25 of the Rajasthan, Prisons Rules, 1951 with full information regarding the character of his crime, his conduct in prison and the probability of his reverting, after release to criminal habits. The State Govt. after considering the entire material rejected, the petitioner's case for premature release and communicated the same to the supdt. Jail, Bikaner vide letter dated 23-11-94. It was contended that the case of the petitioner was directly sent to the Govt. through the Inspr. Genl. of prisons under Rule 135 of the Rules and it was therefore, contended that Rule 150 would have no application in the case.
(3.) The factual position that after the order of the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner's case for premature release was not recommended by the Advisory Board is very clear. Actually, the proceedings of the meeting dated 4-10-94 of the Advisory Board reproduced in the petition itself show that the Advisory Board resolved unanimously that if under the orders of the Rajasthan High Court dated 22-8-94 any benefit could be given to the prisoner under Rule 135 of the Raj. Prisons Rules, 1951, the Advisory Board has no objection and the Supdt. Central Jail, Bikaner was himself competent to take action in the matter. The Advisory Board, therefore directed the Supdt. Jail, Bikaner to take necessary action in the matter and send a report about the case of the petitioner through proper channel to the Govt. of Rajasthan for consideration in accordance with the spirit of the orders of the Supreme Court and the High Court. This can hardly be said to be a recommendation. Infact, the Advisory Board has not considered the matter on merits and has thought that under the directions of the Supreme Court and the High Court the matter has to be decided by the State Govt. without any reference to the Advisory Board.;