Full Judgment
Yad Ram Meena, J.
1. The petitioner has moved this petition for his pre-mature release under the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentence) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). He has undergone actual imprisonment for more than 14 years. His case is that he has not been considered by the Advisory Board for pre-mature release. However, the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate has pointed out that the Advisory Board has considered the case of the petitioner for pre-mature released on 26th August, 1993 and on the basis of the reports made by the District Collector and Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, did not recommend his case for pre-mature release.
2. No reply has been filed by that State but we have seen the reports of the Collector and the Superintendent of Police and the recommendations of the Advisory Board in the file which was shown to us by the learned Dy. G.A. First of all it may be said that the reports which have been made basis for arriving at a decision by the Advisory Board are such reports which may be said to be routine in nature without as much as mentioning the information which was collected for purposes of making the report. We have observed in a number of cases that preparation of these reports is not a mere formality so as to just use the phrases that there is apprehension of breach of peace and that there will be adverse affect on the society and danger to the life of the accused. The report should be objective and it should furnish the details on basis of which the opinion is formed. In this particular case, the prisoner remained on parole on 13 occasions and what happened during these periods has not been investigated at all. All these are matters which ought to have been considered by the authorities making reports. These authorities have to discharge a legal obligation and it should not be taken to be a mere formality. We are constraint to note that such duties are taken very casually and the reports are prepared without proper application of mind. The authorities do not realise that on their recommendations, the question whether a person should remain in jail for life long depends and as such it requires a serious approach, which cannot be done by merely using the phrases, which are used to give guide lines for finding out about the accused.
3. In these circumstances, we direct that the Superintendent of Police and District Collector should make proper extensive reports considering the actual circumstance and all the relevant matters and the reports should be based on proper evidence collected by them. The reports should be prepared within a period of two months from today and the Advisory Board is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner as soon as the reports are received but not later than three months. With these directions, the petition is disposed.