Ram Kumar vs State of U.P.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate.

Ram Kumar has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking his premature release on license. The petitioner was convicted on 2731976 by the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow, under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life by order passed in Sessions Trial No. 17A/75.

Petitioner''s FormA for his release on licence was rejected and the petitioner filed writ petition No. 368/97 before this Court. A copy of the judgment passed in Writ petition No. 368/97 has been filed as Annexure2 to the writ petition. The writ Petition was disposed on 911998 and the order dated 2911997 of the State Government rejecting petitioner''s FormA was quashed. The Court further directed the State Government to reconsider the release of the petitioner in accordance with law by a speaking order. The Court observed:

"Petitioner''s FormA was submitted and on the said FormA the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police endorsed their views. Finally the matter was placed before the Probation Board and the Probation Board in its recommendation, recommended the case of the petitioner for premature release. The report of the Probation Board is as follows.

''From a perusal of the report it is evident that the Probation Board considered each and every aspect of the matter including the reports submitted by the District Magistrate as well as the Superintendent of Police and after carefully considering the said reports, recommended the case of the petitioner for premature release. The report submitted by the Probation Board is based on reasons but the petitioner''s premature release was rejected by the State Government vide order dated 2911997. The State Government rejected the premature release of the petitioner on the ground that the District Probation Officer, in his report, has pointed out that the petitioner is a man of mischievous character and is violent. The District Magistrate also stated in his report that there is no likelihood of petitioner''s living peacefully and the Superintendent of police has also opposed the premature release. However, the State Government has not considered the report of the Probation Officer which was submitted after consider all the aspects of the case including the reports submitted by the District Probation Officer and those of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police. The Probation Board has also given cogent reasons in support of its recommendations and, therefore, it was the duty of the State Government to have considered the said report and should have recorded reasons if the State Government was not agreeable with the said recommendations of the Probation Board. Instead of considering the said recommendations of the Probation Board and giving reasons, the State Government has rejected the petitioner''s Form''A overlooking the recommendations of the Probation Officer and passed its order on the basis of individual reports submitted by the District Probation Officer, the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police."

(The underlining has been done by us)

In pursuance of this Court order dated 911998, the State Government again considered and rejected the FormA of the petitioner by an order dated 431998. A copy of the said order dated 431998 has been annexed with the counteraffidavit filed by the State. It appears that the State Government decided the FormA of the petitioner on the basis of materials already available before it when the, first order rejecting the FormA was passed. We have perused the order dated 431998 and the relevant portion of the order reads as under:

The order of the State Government shows that it has not considered the report of Probation Board and has gone on the report of Probation Officer. While quoting the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 368 of 1998, we have underlined the words "Probation Officer". In fact the words should have been "Probation Board" as is clear from the context and the word "officer" is an inadvertent mistake. It appears that in taking its decision the State Government also fell into error due to the above mistake. The FormA of the petitioner was earlier rejected on 2911997 i.e. about 1 years and 10 months ago from now. In the fitness of things the State Government may obtain fresh report of the Probation Officer and then disposed of the matter pertaining to FormA afresh in the light of the fresh report of the Probation Officer as well as the report of Probation Board.

Accordingly, we quash the order of the State Government dated 431998 rejecting the FormA of the petitioner and dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the State Government to consider FormA of the petitioner afresh after obtaining the report of Probation Officer and Probation Board afresh. The State Government shall dispose of the FormA of the petitioner within 4 months from" the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

Copy of this order may be given to the learned Counsel for the petitioner on payment of Usual charges and also to the Government Advocate as early as possible. Petition allowed.