Raja Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
constitution of india - article 226--habeas corpus and penal code section 302--life imprisonment--pre-mature release--reports of district magistrate and superintendent of police either not reached advisory beard or not considered by the state government--held, order of state government is vitiated when reports are ignored--government to reconsider entire case and pass necessary order on receipt of fresh reports.;the reports of the district magistrate and the police superintendent had not either reached the advisory board or they had not been considered by the state government and the matter was sent back to the advisory board for obtaining fresh recommendations of the district collector and the superintendent of police. when the state government thus ignored the reports of the district magistrate and the superintendent police its order dated 3-7-1989 stands vitiated.;the state government itself should look into those reports and reconsider the matter and pass necessary orders.;writ partly accepted. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 2). 3. he has also filed the report of the district magistrate, pali dated 9-5-1988 which also refers to the report of the local police including the superintendent police and it was recommended that the petitioner may be released on the condition that he will stay only at pali and would not go to his native village dhalop. collector and superintendent police had already been received and they had recommended the release of the petitioner by imposing certain conditions. because in that order it bas clearly been mentioned that the reports of the district magistrate and the police superintendent had not been received recommending the premature release of the persons including the petitioner.by the court1. the petitioner raja ram was convicted under section 302 ipc on 31-7-1974 and was sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned sessions judge sirohi. he filed an appeal before this hon'ble court which was also dismissed.2. thereafter, it appears that his case for premature release was considered by the advisory board and matter was then placed before the slate govt. the state government by its order dated 3-7-89 refused to release the petitioner on two grounds, namely, that the reports of the district magistrate and the police superintendent have not been received and that the petitioner along with some other similarly situated accused were between 35-50 years of age and therefore their premature release may adversely affect the public peace. the directed that the matter may be reconsidered by the advisory board, after taking the report of the district magistrate and the police superintendent. the case of the petitioner is that this fact that the reports of the district magistrate and the police superintendent had already been received by the advisory board, appears to have escaped the notice of the state govt., while passing the order dated 3-7-1989 (annex. 2).3. he has also filed the report of the district magistrate, pali dated 9-5-1988 which also refers to the report of the local police including the superintendent police and it was recommended that the petitioner may be released on the condition that he will stay only at pali and would not go to his native village dhalop. in reply to the writ petition filed by respondent no. 3, in para 2-a, it has been admitted by him that the reports of the distt. collector and superintendent police had already been received and they had recommended the release of the petitioner by imposing certain conditions. but the state government considered all these matters and was of the opinion that the pre-mature release of those persons shall not be proper because their release would affect the public peace. this reply runs counter to the facts mentioned in annex. 2, the order of the state govt. because in that order it bas clearly been mentioned that the reports of the district magistrate and the police superintendent had not been received recommending the premature release of the persons including the petitioner. this leads to the conclusion that the reports of the district magistrate and the police superintendent had not either reached the advisory board or they had not been considered by the state government and the matter was sent back to the advisory board for obtaining fresh recommendations of the district collector and the superintendent of police. when the state govt. thus ignored the reports of the district magistrate and the superintendent police its order dated 3-7-89 stand vitiated.4. in these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the state govt. need not now wait for the reconsideration of the matter by the advisory board after receiving fresh reports from the district magistrate and police superintendent the state government itself should look into those reports and reconsider the matter and pass necessary orders.5. we, therefore, partly accept this writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus and direct the slate govt. to reconsider the question of pre-mature release of the petitioner after taking into account of the report of the district magistrate, pali and the superintendent police, pali, which had already been sent as would be clear from annex. 3 dated 9-5-1988. while reconsidering that matter, the state government should not be influenced by its earlier order dated 3-7-1989 (annex. 2). this reconsidration must be done within one month from today. copy of this order may be sent to the deputy secretary home (group 12).