Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) THE petitioner Jala Ram was convicted under Section 302 IPC by the trial Court. His conviction and sentence has been altered by Hon'ble Supreme Court and he has been acquitted from the charge for offence under Section 302 IPC. However, he has been convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC and has been sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/ - in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment. The petitioner by the time, moved the application for his premature release, completed total sentence of 6 years, 9 months and 25 days and by the time, petitioner 's case was considered by the Advisory Board in meeting dt. 10.01.2008, four more months have passed.
(2.) PETITIONER 's prayer for pre -mature release under Rajasthan Prisoner (Shortening of Sentence) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1958 ') was rejected on the ground that in jail, his work in the factory was not satisfactory. Petitioner therefore, has challenged the order of State dt. 19.03.2008 rejecting his prayer for shortening of sentence and pre -mature release. Under Rule 8 of the Rules of 1958, any convict who is eligible for premature release can move an application in this regard. Petitioner 's case is under Sub -rule 1 of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1958 as petitioner is not in the category of habitual offender. Petitioner has been awarded a sentence of ten years, therefore, he has served sentence of over three years. There is no dispute that the petitioner has already completed the requisite sentence period.
(3.) IT appears from the report of Advisory Board dt. 10.01.2008 that Advisory Board took into consideration the opinion of jail authorities who have opined that petitioner has not committed any crime during the period of sentence. His work was found satisfactory even if petitioner did some less working at some period. The recommendation of the jail authorities as well as recommendation of Advisory Board is in favour of the petitioner for his pre -mature release.;