JYOTI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CALL it by any name, lack of proper cordination, or lack of will to work seriously or inefficiency by the various departments of the Government, they all result in gross injustice to one, who is awaiting the day of deliverance from the prison bars, more particularly when he has acquired legal right to be set free. It is all the more unfortunate when the files concerning such speechless persons who are lodged in jail, are expected to be dealt with by all those officers who are expected to know the law and more particularly when law laid down by this court is not followed in letter and spirit. It is all the more distressing when orders passed in identical circumstances in identical cases are more followed in breach than in observance and this habeas corpus petition is not an exception to such a situation.

(2.) THIS petition has been filed praying for the release of Kalulal from jail where, according to the petitioner, he is in wrongful confinement, since he was legally entitled to be released having been recommended more than twice by the Advisory Board constituted under the provisions of Rajasthan Prisoners (Shortening of Sentence) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1958" ). By these rules provisions have been made about pre-mature release of the accused on recommendation of Advisory Boards constituted under the Rules in circumstances mentioned therein. According to sub-rule (iii) of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1958 the prisoners who have been sentenced to more than 15 years imprisonment or transportation and imprisonment for terms exceeding in aggrigate 15 years and have served 2/3 of the sentence including remission are eligible for consideration for pre-mature release by the Advisory Board.

(3.) THE case of Kalulal on whose behalf this Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed was once again placed before the Advisory Board on 21. 06. 1990 and then again on 24. 03. 1991 and 10. 05. 1991 and in these meetings also the Advisory Board recommended the case for pre-mature release but till date recommendations of the Advisory Board have not been followed resulting in this Habeas Corpus Petition.