RAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate.

(2.) RAM Kumar has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking his premature release on license. The petitioner was convicted on 27-3-1976 by the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow, under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life by order passed in Sessions Trial No. 17-A/75.

(3.) THE order of the State Govern ment shows that it has not considered the report of Probation Board and has gone on the report of Probation Officer. While quoting the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 368 of 1998, we have underlined the words "probation Officer". In fact the words should have been "proba tion Board" as is clear from the context and the word "officer" is an inadvertent mistake. It appears that in taking its decision the State Government also fell into error due to the above mistake. THE Form-A of the petitioner was earlier rejected on 29-1-1997 i. e. about 1 years and 10 months ago from now. In the fit ness of things the State Government may obtain fresh report of the Probation Of ficer and then disposed of the matter pertaining to Form-A afresh in the light of the fresh report of the Probation Officer as well as the report of Probation Board.