JUDGMENT 1. - Imprisoned within the walls of Central Jail, Ajmer, but having an old mother, a wife and three minor children, the petitioner had applied to the Jail administration for being released on parole for a period of three weeks under the Rajasthan Prisoner (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (henceforth, to be referred to as 'the Rules', for short). However, his hopes were dashed when on 15.11.06 the Advisory Committee dismissed his parole case. Hence, this petition before this court. 2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the District and Sessions Judge, Bundi convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment. As of 9.2.07, the petitioner has served six years, eleven months, and three days of imprisonment term. Since he has a family, as mentioned above, since his mother was not keeping well, he had filed an application for being released on parole for a period of three weeks. He had also filed an application for being released on regular first parole for twenty days in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules. His case for regular first parole was placed before the Parole Advisory Committee on 15.11.06. However, because of the adverse report of the police, the Advisory Committee dismissed his case. Thus, this petition before this court. 3. Mrs. Sumati Bishnoi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that under Rule 9 of the Rules, once a convicted prisoner completes one-fourth of his sentence and if his conduct in the jail were satisfactory, he is eligible for being released on a regular first parole for twenty days. The petitioner had fulfilled both the criteria as laid down by the Rule 9 of the Rules. Thus he should have been granted the benefit of the first regular parole. Secondly, under Rule 9 of the Rules, the petitioner is not required to state any reason for seeking regular parole. Hence, the petitioner could not be asked to state any reason for seeking the regular parole. Thirdly, the Advisory Committee should not have instinctively accepted the adverse report of the police. Hence, the order dated 15.11.06 deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, Mr. M.L. Goyal, the learned Additional Government Advocate, has argued that the petitioner's mother did not require any medical attention. Thirdly, the Advisory Committee should not have instinctively accepted the adverse report of the police. Hence, the order dated 15.11.06 deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, Mr. M.L. Goyal, the learned Additional Government Advocate, has argued that the petitioner's mother did not require any medical attention. Secondly, the Superintendent of the Police had given an adverse report against the petitioner. Thus, the Advisory Committee was justified in rejecting the petitioner's case for parole. He has, thus, supported the impugned order. 5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the impugned order. 6. Undoubtedly, the parole system is part of the reformative theory of punishment. Parole is granted to a convicted prisoner in order to inculcate good behaviour in him. This is clearly stated in Rule 13 of the Rules. The parole system consists of two kinds of paroles; the regular parole under Rule 9 of the Rules and the emergent parole under Rule 10A of the Rules. For the former parole, he convicted prisoner should have completed one-fourth of his sentence and should have shown good conduct during this period. Then, he becomes eligible for the grant of regular parole. Of course, grant of parole cannot be demanded as a right. But, in case the prisoner fulfills the above two conditions, he acquires the right of consideration of his parole case by the Advisory Committee constituted under the Rules. For the latter parole, on the other hand, the prisoner must state a particular reason for seeking the emergent parole. Thus, while Rule 10A requires that a particular reason be stated, under Rule 9 no reason needs to be assigned for seeking the parole under Rule 9 of the Rules, the convicted prisoner is entitled for parole by flux of time and by his good conduct. In the present case, since the petitioner had completed more than one-fourth of his sentence and since the report of the Superintendent of the Central Jail was in his favour, there is no reason for denying him the benefit of the first regular parole. 7. In catena of cases this court as well as the Apex Court has held that the Advisory Committee should not accept the police report in a mechanical manner. 7. In catena of cases this court as well as the Apex Court has held that the Advisory Committee should not accept the police report in a mechanical manner. In fact, since the Advisory Committee is duty bound to consider the extent of reform undergone by the prisoner, the Committee should be guided by the report of the Superintendent of the Jail. For, it is he who has seen the conduct, the progress of the convicted prisoner. He is the best-equipped person to tell the Committee about the changes which have occurred in the prisoner during the period of his incarceration. Therefore, in the present case the Advisory Committee was unjustified in relying on the adverse police report for denying the benefit of parole to the petitioner. 8. In the result this petition is allowed. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer is directed to release the petitioner, Trilok Singh s/o Late Shri Amreek Singh on his first regular parole for twenty days under Rule 9 of the Rules. The petitioner is directed to maintain peace, tranquillity and order during his furlough and to return to the jail on the twentieth day from the date of his release.Petition Allowed. *******