Kuber vs State of U.P.

Virendra Saran and Dr. Maithli Saran, JJ.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate.

The Petitioner was convicted on 18.2.1976 u/s 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. According 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 remission. 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 fast 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.

Learned Government Advocate has pointed out that by virtue of Rule 3(c) of the U.P. Prisoners'' Release on Probation Rules, if once Form A of the Petitioner has been rejected, he cannot claim as of right his release under the said Rules and now no fresh Form A can be issued to him.

We have given our anxious consideration to the entire facts of the case and the other material placed before us. The fact remains that Petitioner�s Form A was rejected more than ten years hence. Much water has flown since then. So far as Clause (c) of Rule 3 of the Rules is concerned. Explanation appended to said Rule states:

The rule in Clause (c) precludes a convict from himself applying, a second time for release u/s 2 of the Act, but the State Government may direct the Inspector General of Prison to place any case, which has already been once rejected for reconsideration before the Board referred to in Sub-rule (5) of Rule 6.

Thus, it cannot be disputed that the State Government can instruct the Inspector 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 State Government to consider whether the Government should take action u/s 10. Rule 3(c) of the said Rules.

Accordingly this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction that a copy of this order shall be sent to the State Government as early as possible and the State Government may consider release of the Petitioner as provided in Explanation to Rule 3(c) of the U.P. Prisoners'' Release on Probation Rules. As soon as the State Government takes a decision, it shall convey the same to the Petitioner.

Copy of this order be supplied to learned Counsel for the Petitioner so also learned Government Advocate on payment of usual changes as early as possible.