PHARAT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this peti tion the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9-12-1997 by which the petitioner's premature release (Form-A) has been rejected by the State Govern ment. The petitioner was convicted by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kheri on 17-9-1981 u/s. 302, 148, 324, 149, I. P. C. and was awarded Imprisonment for Life, the Sessions Trial number being 351 of 1980. It is not disputed the petitioner has al ready served out more than 14years actual sentence and more than 19 years with remissions, and therefore, he is entitled to be considered for premature release. The petitioner moved Form-A for premature release on which an enquiry was conducted and report was submitted by the Probation Board as well as the Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police sub mitted the following report :

(2.) THE reply of the first question shows that the Superintendent of Police submitted his report that there will be no repercussion in the village, if the petitioner is released prematurely. THE reply of the second question also shows that the report is that there will be no repercussion in the family of the deceased if the petitioner is prematurely released. It is also not disputed that the life of the petitioner will also be safe. It is also sub mitted that the petitioner has no criminal history and no adverse reports arc avail able against the petitioner when he was released on parole or home leave. In the last it is also alleged that there is no adverse material against the petitioner and after giving para wise reply the report has been submitted that there is no doubt that no un-toward incident took place when the petitioner was released on parole or home leave but premature release of the petitioner is opposed. THE report as al ready pointed out above from its top to bottom was in favour of the petitioner and the reply of each and every question has been given in favour of the petitioner but in the last it is said that premature release is opposed. THEre is nothing on record to explain this discrepancy as to how the Su perintendent of Police after recording the above mentioned subjective satisfaction came to the conclusion and submitted that the petitioner's premature release is op posed. THE contention of the petitioner's counsel is that in fact, the report sub mitted by the Superintendent of Police itself shows that the same is self-contradic tory and the conclusion arrived at by the Superintendent of Police is, on the face of it perverse and against the record. We find force in this contention and as pointed of above, the conclusion recorded by the Su perintendent of Police that the premature release of the petitioner is opposed on the basis of material, is on the face of it, ad verse and against the record. No doubt the presumption is always in favour of the Officer that he has considered and sub mitted his report in accordance with law and after scrutinizing the whole matter but the same is rebut table and as pointed out above in the instant case the endorsement of the Superintendent of Police that premature release is opposed, is on the face of it, adverse and against the record. THE District Magistrate has submitted his report separately and he stated that : Shows that the District Magistrate did not apply his mind and he submitted his report on the basis of conclusion recorded by the Superintendent of Police. THE report submitted by the Superinten dent of Police, as pointed out above, is, on the face of it, perverse. On the other hand the Probation Officer after enquiry sub mitted a report in favour of the petitioner and recommended the premature release of the petitioner. THE Board thereafter considered all the conclusions and sub mitted a report that premature release of the petitioner is opposed. THE Board con sidered only the operative portion of the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police that premature release of the petitioner is opposed. He also pointed out that the District Magistrate has also op posed the premature release. THE State Government thereafter rejected the ap plication on the ground of age, reports of the Superintendent of Police and the Dis trict Magistrate but as pointed out above the Board did not consider this aspect of the case that the Superintendent of Police after enquiry found the facts in favour of the petitioner and the conclusions of the Superintendent of Police are, on the face of it, perverse and against the reports. THEre is nothing on the record to show as to how the Superintendent of Police had come to the conclusion that it will not be a fit case for petitioner's premature release specially when he has himself noted down the facts earlier which show that the petitioner is fit person to be released on licence. No reason at all has been men tioned by the Superintendent of Police in his report on which basis it can be said that the conclusion drawn by the Superinten dent of Police that the petitioner is not entitled to premature Release is valid one.