KASHMIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who, was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, is, undergoing the aforesaid imposed sentence in Open Air Jail, Bilaspur. The petitioner, is, aggrieved by the orders rendered, on, 13.7.2013, by, respondent No. 2, rejecting the case of the petitioner, for, his pre mature release. Besides the prayer made, in, the petition, is, of respondents No. 1 to 3 being directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for his pre -mature release, in, consonance with the guidelines and para 421 of the Jail Manual.

(2.) IN the reply, filed by the respondents, it is contended that the case of the petitioner has been considered by the competent authority and his claim for his being prematurely released from jail has been rejected.

(3.) A perusal of recommendations of the State Sentence Review Board, which had met twice divulge that the petitioner had not indulged in such behavior nor his conduct was such so, as, to not afford him the benefit of his being pre -maturely released from jail. On the contrary, the recommendations of State Sentence Review Board, for, the premature release of the petitioner from jail, are, founded upon a well scrutinized analysis and on a consideration of the entire relevant material on record. The said material on record, when, placed before the competent authority necessitated either its acceptance or rejection. In case the competent authority in its wisdom thought, it, fit to reject the recommendations of State Sentence Review Board, it was imperative as well, as, it was under an onerous legal obligation, while coming to repulse the recommendations of the competent authority, which would visit the petitioner with penal consequences, to, hence, not render a cryptic order, as rendered, rather it was obliged to render a communicative and a speaking order. In other words, the competent authority was obliged to render an order furnishing full and complete reasons taking with its sweep the recommendations made by the State Sentence Review Board. Hence, the said cryptic order, as, rendered by the competent authority, which comes to supplant and substitute the recommendations of the Board, is, infected with the vice of non -application of mind. As an aftermath, it necessitates, its, not being accepted. As a result, in view of the prayer/relief, urged in the writ petition, the competent authority is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner, for, his premature release from jail. The decision as would come to be rendered on a reconsideration of the claim of the petitioner, ought to be an informed decision. It is also required to be a communicative order disclosing the reasons which weigh with the competent authority in its coming to any conclusion.