ORDER Dr. T. N. Singh, J. 1. Shri Raghuvir Singh. Counsel for the petitioner, Shri P.D. Agrawal, Panel lawyer for the State. On 23-6-1983, the petitioner's case for release on probation has been considered by the Probation Board which recommended "postponement" of consideration of the question of his release, for a period of 4 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn out attention to the charge in the legal position that has since obtained. 2. In case of Pancham Singh and of Bhagwan Singh M. P. No. 242/85 and 193/85 respectively; decided on 27-6-85 this Court took the view that the Probation Board is statutorily required to take a positive decision on any case placed for its consideration. Whether or not the prisoner is entitled to be released on probation on the date of consideration of his case should be the only question to which the Board has to address itself. The recommendatation for "postponement", though contemplated in Form-A, appended to the M.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Rules, 1964, framed under 1954 M. P. Act, obviously could not affect his right We have considered the ambit and purport of the prisoner's right contemplated under the Act and the Rules. We have no doubt that there is no provision either in the Act or even in the Rules for postponement of consideration of the question. As no such express provision is to be found therein none can be read to defeat the object of the enactments. The penultimate column in Form A captioned on "Recommendation of the Board" contains an itemised proforma of possible recommendations. While other items refer to the conditions for release, item No.7 postulates 'rejection' and item No.4, deferred release. Because in item No.5 is stated "postponed till............if prisoner's conduct is satisfactory," reliance is placed thereon. 3. But we find it difficult to hold, in view of the provision of sub-rule (5) of Rule 6, that there can be any postponement of consideration of the prayer for release by Probation Board for any specific period as the Board is required to meet once in every month to make recommendations. We must hold that no authority is conferred by item No.5 of the said proforma of recommendations on the Probation Board to defer consideration of the prayer. It may reject the prayer giving reasons for the decision would be examinable by the Court. We must hold that no authority is conferred by item No.5 of the said proforma of recommendations on the Probation Board to defer consideration of the prayer. It may reject the prayer giving reasons for the decision would be examinable by the Court. The prisoner would also be able to renew his prayer as repeated prayers are not barred. There is ample and high authority for the proposition that statutory provisions advancing the cause of 'prison justice' must be so construed that the prisoner is able to avail affectively the benefit intended to be advanced to him. (See Sunil Batra's case) AIR 1980 SC 1579 . 4. We, therefore, hold the postponement of consideration of petitioners' case for 4 years to be illegal and void and direct that the petitioner's application for release on probation shall be considered by the State within one month and in the event of default he shall be released on bail of Rs. 7000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Gwalior. Copies of this order be sent to the learned Sessions Judge, Gwalior and Superintendent, Central Jail, Gwalior, for compliance.