JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.In this case a short question about the interpretation of Rule-8 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Shortening of Sentence) Rules, 1958, is involved. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was sentenced under different sections and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 13 years and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, it was further directed that the petitioner will have to undergo a sentence of 3 years. 3. It is an admitted position that in the instant case the petitioner has already undergone the sentence of more than 12 years. The case of the present petitioner was forwarded by the Advisory Board to the State of Rajasthan with the recommendation that he should be released. 4. On behalf of the State it was submitted that the present petitioner has not paid the fine, as such, his case cannot be considered for shortening of the sentence and he will have to undergo the sentence awarded on account of default of payment of fine. It was further submitted that the State Government has referred back the case of the petitioner to the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board has directed the District Magistrate to give farther comments. The order passed by the State Government is not available on record. There is only an order, Annexure-2, on record and in this letter it has been mentioned that the State Government has rejected the recommendation of the ten persons including the present petitioner. 5. Ordinarily, the State Government cannot reject and should not reject the report of the Advisory Board without assigning the reasons. But, in the instant case, the Government Advocate is not in a position to show why the State Government has not accepted the recommendation of the Advisory Board Apart from that the Advisory Board cannot sit over the papers for months together. On behalf of the State it was also submitted that there is an order that the matter may be deferred till the report of the District Magistrate. This order is dated, 21st June 1990. More than two months have passed and the report has not been received and no order has been passed by the Advisory Board. 6. On behalf of the State it was also submitted that there is an order that the matter may be deferred till the report of the District Magistrate. This order is dated, 21st June 1990. More than two months have passed and the report has not been received and no order has been passed by the Advisory Board. 6. In the result, the writ petition is accepted and it is directed that the period of imprisonment should include the sentence in default of payment of fine, if the same has not been paid. As such, in the instant case the period of sentence will be 16 years instead of 13 years including the period of sentence on account of default of payment of fine. Petitioner has already completed more than 12 years in jail, as such, he is entitled to be considered as of right for the shortening of the sentence. The Advisory Board has already recommended his case. 7. State Government is directed to consider the case of the present petitioner afresh within a period of one month from today on the basis of earlier report dated, 9.1.90. If the State Government fails to consider the case of the present petitioner within a period of one month from today, then it shall be presumed that the Government has agreed with the earlier proposal of the Advisory Committee and the petitioner shall be released immediately after the completion of one month without the order of the State Government. 8. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.Writ Petition accepted. *******