KARNI DAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a convict under going life sentence in Central jail Bikaner. According to him, he has served over 22 years sentence so far. He had filed a criminal writ petition No. 523/92 in the Supreme Court of India. The petition was dismissed, but a direction to the Govt. to re-consider the premature release of the petitioner after a period of one year from the date of the order i.e. 16-8-1993 was issued. The petitioner filed D. B. C. writ petition (Habeas Corpus) No. 3985/93 in this Court complaining that the Supreme Court's direction had not been carried out. Following order was passed disposing of that case on 22-8-1994.

(2.) The respondents have denied the fact that the Advisory Board has recommended the premature release of the petitioner. In paragraph 8A of the reply to the amended writ petition it has been categorically denied that State Govt. had rejected the recommendation of the Advisory Board. It was contended that infact the petitioner's case was not considered by the Advisory Board nor its recommendations were sent to the State Govt. It is concluded that as per the order of the High Court the case of the petitioner was sent to the State Govt. through the Inspector General of Prisons under Para 135 of para 25 of the Rajasthan, Prisons Rules, 1951 with full information regarding the character of his crime, his conduct in prison and the probability of his reverting, after release to criminal habits. The State Govt. after considering the entire material rejected, the petitioner's case for premature release and communicated the same to the supdt. Jail, Bikaner vide letter dated 23-11-94. It was contended that the case of the petitioner was directly sent to the Govt. through the Inspr. Genl. of prisons under Rule 135 of the Rules and it was therefore, contended that Rule 150 would have no application in the case.

(3.) The factual position that after the order of the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner's case for premature release was not recommended by the Advisory Board is very clear. Actually, the proceedings of the meeting dated 4-10-94 of the Advisory Board reproduced in the petition itself show that the Advisory Board resolved unanimously that if under the orders of the Rajasthan High Court dated 22-8-94 any benefit could be given to the prisoner under Rule 135 of the Raj. Prisons Rules, 1951, the Advisory Board has no objection and the Supdt. Central Jail, Bikaner was himself competent to take action in the matter. The Advisory Board, therefore directed the Supdt. Jail, Bikaner to take necessary action in the matter and send a report about the case of the petitioner through proper channel to the Govt. of Rajasthan for consideration in accordance with the spirit of the orders of the Supreme Court and the High Court. This can hardly be said to be a recommendation. Infact, the Advisory Board has not considered the matter on merits and has thought that under the directions of the Supreme Court and the High Court the matter has to be decided by the State Govt. without any reference to the Advisory Board.