Honble SHETHNA, J.–In Sessions Case No.24/84 the petitioner along with co-accused was convicted under Sec. 302 I.P.C. and sentence to suffer life imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge vide its judgment dated 26.8.1985. An appeal was filed against the said order of conviction and sentence through jail being D.B. (Jail) Appeal No. 344/98 which was dismissed by this Court. He and his co-accused both completed 14 years and on completion of 14 years his co-accused Lakh Singh was already released under the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentence) Rules, 1958 but the petitioner has not been released. Hence, this petition. (2). From the reply affidavit it is clear that the case of the petitioner was not considered under the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentence) Rules 1958 because he had three convictions on his name viz., (1) CR. No. 53/81-Case No.87/81 under the Rajasthan Excise Act and convicted vide judgment dated 20.8.1988 and sentenced to suffer one year imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default to further under go three months S.I. ; (ii) in CR No. 47/84 he was convicted u/Sec. 457 and 380 I.P.C. and sentenced to one R.I. and a fine of Rs. 50 and in default to further undergo three months S.I.; and (iii) Sessions Case No. 24/84 wherein he was convicted with life imprisonment for offence punishable under Sec. 302 I.P.C. (3). The case of the petitioner was not considered under the aforesaid Rules on the ground that the petitioner was `habitual offender as provided under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958. (4). From the facts narrated above it is clear that all the three cases were not of similar nature. First case was under the Excise Act, second case was under Sec. 380 I.P.C. for theft and 457 I.P.C. for trespass and the third case was of murder. Thus, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that all the three cases were of similar nature. Thus, obviously the respondents committed error in considering the petitioner as `habitual offences and not considering his case under the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentence) Rules, 1958. (5). In view of the above this petition is allowed. Thus, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that all the three cases were of similar nature. Thus, obviously the respondents committed error in considering the petitioner as `habitual offences and not considering his case under the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentence) Rules, 1958. (5). In view of the above this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and release him on completion of 14 years as provided under the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentence) Rules, 1958 which has been done in the case of his co-accused as not a single case was registered against when he was in jail.