KUBER Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE petitioner was convicted on 18-2-1976 under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Ac cording to the counter-affidavit filed, he has already undergone 15 years 5 months and 28 days actual imprisonment and 20 years 10 months and 27 days with remis sion. THE counter-affidavit is dated 27-5-1998. Petitioner's Form-A for premature release was rejected as far back as on 13-5-1998. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has prayed that a fresh Form-A should now be supplied to the petitioner. He has also pointed out that the petitioner has lost vision in one of his eyes and the vision of the other eye of the petitioner is also deteriorating last and that the petitioner undertakes to lead a peaceful life in case he is released on licence. It has further been averred in the writ petition that the petitioner has suitable guardians who are solvent and who can take care of the petitioner and that when the petitioner went on home leave he did not misuse his temporary liberty.

(3.) THUS, it cannot be disputed that the State Government can instruct the Inspec tor General of Prisons to place before the Board case of such prisoner whose Form-A has once been rejected. In view of the fact that more than ten years have already passed since rejection of petitioner's Form-A and allegation of loss of eye-sight of one of the eyes of the petitioner and the diminishing vision of the other eye of the petitioner, we consider it necessary to bring it to the notice of the Slate Govern ment to consider whether the Govern ment should take action under Section to Rule 3 (c) of the said Rules.