- (1.) GRIEVANCE of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that although they have served the sentence for more than 14 years, their cases were not placed by the Jail Authorities before the state Advisory Board for shortening of their sentences and premature release. In these petitions Constitutional validity of Rule 8 (2) (i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006 (for short '2006 Rules') has been challenged.
(2.) IT is contended on behalf of the respondents that the State of Rajasthan in its wisdom exercising the powers conferred by clause (5) and (27) of Section 59 of the rajasthan Prisons Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') has formulated 2006 Rules. Clause (5)and Clause (27) provide thus :- " (5) for the award of marks and the shortening of sentences. " " (27) in regard to the admission, custody, employment, dieting, treatment and release of prisoners. " Since the petitioners have not earned four years remission in view of Rule 8 (2) (i) of 2006 rules they are not entitled to the relief sought by them.
(3.) HAVING analysed the submissions we notice that in Rule 8 (2) (i) of 2006 Rules, a condition has been added that the prisoner shall also have to earn a minimum of 4 years of remission in order to be eligible for consideration. Rule 8 (2){i) reads as under :- " (i) a prisoner who has been sentenced to imprisonment for life for an offence for which death penalty is one of the punishment provided by law or who has been sentenced to death but this sentence has been commuted under Section 433 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 into one of imprisonment for life, shall be considered only after he has served 14 years of actual Imprisonment excluding remission but Including the period of detention spent during enquiry, investigation or trial, on the condition that such a prisoner shall also have to earn a minimum of 4 years of remission in order to by eligible for considerration. " (Emphasis supplied);