JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner in this case was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Alwar for the offenceunder section 302 IPC and other offences and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and other sentences which were to run concurrently. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence was dismissed on 21.1.1985. Thereafter, he served the sentence and in due course tame eligible for consideration of his case for premature release in view of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred togs 'the Rules of 1958'). His case was considered by the Advisory Board which considering the relevant circumstances recommended his premature release on 24.8.1993. When the aforesaid recommendation was placed before the State Government, the same was turned down on the ground that certain penalty was imposed on the petitioner on account (of the, misconduct in jail while he was undergoing sentence. This order of the Government has been challenged in the present writ petition and one of the grounds is that under Rule 12 of the Rules of 1958, the only ground available to the Government for refusing to accept the recommendations of the Advisory Board is that whether the prisoner can be released without any danger to himself or to the Society. On this ground, the Government has not refused to accept the recommendations of the Advisory Board, as such, the order is bad in law. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on Snit. Jyoti Sharma V. State of Rajasthan (1992 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 54) and the case of Masoom Bai v. State , and Others which has been referred to in the Case of smit , Jyoti (supra). 2. It has been brought to our notice that while the petitioner was undergoing his sentence in jail, he went on strike when the prisoners agitated that they should not be forced to do labour while they were kept in jail and were undergoing sentences. On account of going on strike, certain remission was with-held. However, it is the admitted position that the petitioner became eligible for being considered by the Advisors Board for premature release. 3. Under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1958, the Advisory Board before recommending shortening of sentence or Premature release of prisoner(s) has to examine the following matters: "7. On account of going on strike, certain remission was with-held. However, it is the admitted position that the petitioner became eligible for being considered by the Advisors Board for premature release. 3. Under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1958, the Advisory Board before recommending shortening of sentence or Premature release of prisoner(s) has to examine the following matters: "7. Scrutiny by the Advisory Board-The Advisory Board before recommending shortening of sentences or premature release of prisoners shall examine the following matters in full and accurate details: (a ) Circumstances in which offence was committed and the punishment awarded by the Court; (b) Details of the prisoner's previous history and character in the district where the prisoner was resident; (c) Prisoner's conduct in the prison and the result of imprisonment already undergone by him; (d) Opinion of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police of the Districts in which the prisoner was convicted and was resident with special reference to the following points: (i) the reaction in the locality, if the prisoner is released prematurely; (ii) the feelings of the relations of the victim or victims of the offence who suffered at the hands of the accused in case of premature release; (iii) whether the life of the accused itself will be safe, if he is to he released prematurely; (iv) any other information material (v) to the case of the prisoner; and whether the prisoner can be released with safety to the community." 4. After the Advisory Board has considered these matters, the State Government has to consider the matter and under Rule 12 of the Rules of 1958, the premature release can be withheld only if the Government orders that the release of the prisoner would be dangerous to the Society or to himself. The Government in its order has not come out with this reason for refusing the premature release of the petitioner. On the other hand the only reason assigned is the conduct of the petitioner while in jail and wherein also the details of the activities of going on strike have not been mentioned. The jail Superintendent himself has recommended the premature release of the petitioner, who is 72 years of age and has not reported anything against his conduct in jail. The jail Superintendent himself has recommended the premature release of the petitioner, who is 72 years of age and has not reported anything against his conduct in jail. On account of the general agitation by the prisoners the conduct of the petitioner cannot be said to be had so as to dis-entitle him to premature release and the Advisory Board has proceeded on this basis. It is not open to the State Government to refuse to accept the recommendations of the Advisory Board on the ground of the conduct of the prisoner while serving the sentence and it can also be said that the nature of the conduct of the petitioner in this case does not call for any adverse view for the purpose of premature release. 5. In the cases of Jyoti Sharma and Masoonm Bai (supra), it has already been considered that the Government has very limited scope while examining the recommendations of the Advisory Board and cannot examine the case of the petitioner on the grounds which are available to the Advisory Board. In the present case, there is no ground for holding that the petitioner cannot be released without any danger to the Society, hence, the order dated 23.11.1993 of the State Government deserves to be quashed. 6. This writ petition is allowed, the order dated 23.11.1993 passed by the State Government, so far as it relates to the present petitioner is quashed and it is directed that the petitioner he released forth with, if not required in any other case. It will be open to the Government to call upon the petitioner to enter into a bond in Form-2 in Appendix, in accordance with the Rules of 1958.Petition allowed. *******