( 1 ) THE petitioner. Dr. N. S. Jain, approaches this Court for the second time in connection with and in regard to his submission that he be ordered to be prematurely released from jail where he is undergoing sentence of life imprisonment on conviction by the Sessions Jud. ge under Sections 302/120-B/34, Indian Penal Code, which sentence was upheld by the High Court and, in a way, confirmed by the Supreme Court when it dismissed the special leave petition of the petitioner against the judgment of the High Court. The petitioner, including the period of detention as an under trial while being prosecuted for the above offences, has by now been confined for almost 16 years.

( 2 ) ORIGINALLY the petitioner had approached this Court with a complaint that his case was not being considered for premature release as postulated by Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with para 516-B of the relevant jail manual. In that casc this Court had directed that Delhi Administration to expeditiously consider the petitioner s case. In consequence of that direction, the Sentence Revising Board of the Delhi Administration met on 3rd June, 1985 and opined that it did not recommend the premature release of the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court again by the present petition.

( 3 ) RULE nisi was issued by us on July 11,1985. By way of return, the respondents have filed an affidavit sworn by Shri A. S. Khullar. Deputy Secretary (Home), Delhi Administration. Shri Khullar has deposed that the petitioner s case was fully considered by the Sentence Revising Board but the Board did not recommend the premature release of the petitioner. The Administrator of the Union Territory has concurred with it and confirmed the opinion of the Board. Along with the affidavit, a copy of an extract of the minutes of the meeting of the Sentence Revising Board held on 3rd June, 1985 is attached as annexure a .

( 4 ) WE directed the respondent to produce the relevant record before us and Mr. R. M. Bagai, learned counsel for the respondent, has very fairly placed the entire record before us.

( 5 ) ON a perusal of the record we find that the copy of the minutes attached to the affidavit of Shri Khullar is not a copy of the full minutes. We have had the benefit of reading the original minutes, as the record is before us.

( 6 ) THE Sentence Revising Board did not consider the case of the petitioner alone. It was considered along with the cases of Smt. Chandresh Sharma, Rakesh Kaushik and Bhagirath.

( 7 ) THE parameters of consideration by the Sentence Revising Board are set out by it right in the beginning of the report on the first page. The Board has set itself to consider seven aspects in revising the sentence in respect of various persons. Coming to the consideration of the four persons including the petitioner, the Board has very fairly stated that it has considered the cases of the said four convicts together as, in its opinion, all the said four convicts were tried together by the Sessions Judge for the offences with which they were charged. After setting out the facts of the case and noting the fact of conviction and quantum of sentence by the Sessions Judge as confirmed by the High Court and reproducing the observations of the Supreme Court in the special leave petition filed by the petitioner and also after noticing that the co-convicts Ujagar Singh and Kartar Singh had been executed on October 9, 1983 the Board observed as a finding as under :

"the Board took into consideration the nature and gravity of offence, committed by the convicts, circumstances which led to the commission of offence, the age of the convicts at the time of commission of the offence, the reports from the various agencies such as authorities of Jail, the probation Officer and the authorities of the Police department and after taking into consideration of the above mentioned factors, the general consensus was that viewing