SITA RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is life convict having been sentenced under Sec tion 302, IPC on 2-2-1981 in S. T No. 27 of 1980 by Sessions Judge, Faizabad. By 23-8-1997 the petitioner had undergone 17 years, 4 months, and 23 days of imprison ment without remission and 22 years, 9 months and 7 days with remission. THE petitioner had applied for his pre-mature release under the provisions of the U. P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, known as Form-A. THE State Government by means of its order dated 9-7-1991 has rejected the release of the petitioner for his pre- mature release against which this writ petition has been preferred. THE learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he does not press this petition so far as relief for release of the petitioner on nominal roll under Para 198 of the Jail Manual is concerned.

(2.) ALONGWITH counter-affidavit entire Form-A with reports of different officers has been annexed which shows that the Probationary Officer as well as District Magistrate had not recommended the pre mature release of the petitioner on the ground that his proposed guardian who is his wife is a lady or unsound mind. They have also stated that the petitioner's house has been sold by his father and he has no land or immovable property. The State Government on the basis of report of Probationary Board also rejected the prayer of the petitioner for his pre-mature release but without assigning any reasons whatsoever. This is not correct because the Probationary Board is expected to give reasons as to why it did not consider it fit to release the petitioner. In view of this, the matter has to be sent back to the State Government for reconsideration of the matter after remitting it to the Probation ary Board which shall be required to sub mit its opinion with reasons. If the wife of the petitioner is not a suitable guardian on the ground that she is a lady of unsound mind, the question whether the Proba tionary Officer can act as guardian should also be considered. In any case the petitioner should be given an opportunity to nominate another guardian.