JUDGMENT 1. The prisoner-Raju, who is undergoing life term sentence at Central Jail, Kota has preferred this application seeking seven days regular parole. 2. A reply to the application has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that though the prisoner has undergone sentence for a term of 21 years 05 months 26 days including remission upto 20.4.2011, but he is not entitled for 07 days parole in view of sub-rule (3) of Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Prisoner Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958' hereinafter). Sub-Rule (3) of the Rules of 1958 provides that if the prisoner overstays or commits any breach of term of the parole more than once, he shall be permanently debarred from the concession of release on parole. 3. On examination of entire record available with the learned Public Prosecutor, we found that the prisoner has undergone 17 years 05 months 11 days actual imprisonment, thus, he is entitled to be considered for shortening of sentence as per the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006 (for short 'the Rules of 2006' hereinafter). The eligibility for consideration under the Rules of 2006 is prescribed under Rule 8, which reads as follows:- "Rule 8. Prisoners' eligibility for consideration by the Advisory Board.- (1)- The Advisory Board may consider the cases of the following type of prisoners only:- (i)a prisoner undergoing a substantive sentence of five years or over, and who has completed two thirds of imprisonment, including remission; (ii) a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for life or for more than 14 years, and who has served ⅔rd of his sentence excluding remission or 13 years 4 months of imprisonment including remission, whichever is less. The period of imprisonment shall include sentence in default of payment of fine, if the same has not been paid; (iii)Prisoners awarded sentences by Court-Martial who have served two-3 third of their sentences including the period of remissions; (iv)Prisoners suffering from fatal diseases like cancer, AIDS, or infectious diseases, such as leprosy; provided their disease is likely to be dangerous to other prisoners and conditions prescribed in rule 7 are fulfilled; (v)Prisoners who are completely blind or handicapped and are wholly depend on others for their daily routine work; (vi)Prisoners who have attained the age of 70 years in case of male prisoners 65 years in case of workmen prisoners and who have completed at least one third of their sentence, and in whose case no public interest is likely to be served by keeping them in prison, provided they are serving sentence for their first only conviction. (2)- Notwithstanding anything in sub-rule (1) (i) a prisoner who has been sentenced to imprisonment for life for an offence for which death penalty is one of the punishment provided by law or who has been sentenced to death but this sentence has been commuted under Section 433 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, into one of imprisonment for life, shall be4 considered only after he has served 14 years of actual imprisonment excluding remission but including the period of detention spent, during enquiry, investigation or trial, on the condition that such a prisoner shall also have to earn a minimum of 4 years of remission in order to be eligible for consideration; (ii)prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life under Sections 304B, 376, 396, 467 and 489D of the Indian Penal Code may be considered for premature release only after completion of 14 years of actual imprisonment (with the period undergone during trial), on the condition that such a prisoner shall also have to earn a minimum of 4 years of remission in order to be eligible to consideration. Explanation.- For the purpose of this rule, remission shall mean only that part of the remission which is actually earned by a prisoner in accordance with the provisions of the Jail Manual but shall not include any special remission that may be awarded to prisoners in general to mark the occasion of some events like Independence Day, Republic Day, Centenary Celebrations of National Leaders, visit of some dignitary to Jail, etc." 4. The negligibilities for consideration as per Rules of 2006 are prescribed under Rule 9. The prisoner, admittedly, does not suffer from any ineligibility prescribed under the rule aforesaid. 5. This Court by order dated 4.5.2011 directed the respondents to ascertain the reasons for denying shortening of sentence to the prisoner. In pursuant thereto, learned Public Prosecutor has shown entire record of the prisoner during imprisonment and otherwise too. The conduct of the prisoner was found satisfactory. The Superintendent of Police as well as Social Welfare Department recommended for shortening of sentence, but the same was not granted in view of the fact that he violated parole condition twice. 6. True it is, Rule 18(3) of the Rules of 1958 debars a prisoner from the concession of release on parole, if he commits any breach of parole more than twice, but no such condition is available for shortening of sentence under the Rules of 2006. The prisoner-Raju has already undergone actual imprisonment of more than 17 years and he do not suffer from any ineligibility for shortening of sentence under the Rules of 2006, we do not find any just reason for not to consider his case under the Rules of 2006. 7. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the advisory board constituted under the Rules of 2006 to consider the case of prisoner-Raju afresh in accordance with the Rules and by ignoring the breach of terms and conditions imposed upon him while undergoing parole or in other words by treating him ineligibility as per sub-rule 3 of Rule 18 of the Rules of 1958.Petition Disposed of With Direction. *******