10.07.2017, informed the Superintendent of Jail, District Jail, Phek that, in view of the Notification No. HOME/JL-46/99 dated 16.05.2001, the matter of premature release of the petitioner could not be considered for the fact that the petitioner as a convict was yet to complete 14 years of imprisonment which was the eligibility for premature release. In reference of and subsequent to the said communication dated 10.07.2017 of the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Nagaland, Kohima, the Deputy Superintendent, District Jail, Phek forwarding the representation of the petitioner for his premature release, had informed the Director General of Prisons, Nagaland i.e the respondent No. 3 by his letter dated 07.10.2017 that the petitioner had completed 14 years of actual imprisonment on 23.05.2017 and it was indicated therein that the rejection of the petitioner’s application on the ground of non-completion of 14 years of actual imprisonment by communication dated 10.07.2017 would require a re-consideration. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though a few numbers of correspondences were exchanged between the respondent authorities in the intervening period, the representation of the petitioner, forwarded by the Deputy Superintendent, District Jail, Phek is yet to receive due consideration at the end of the State respondent authorities. He has further submitted that the said representation requires a reconsideration, despite rejection of his earlier representation on the ground which was not correct on facts about his actual imprisonment. In support of his submission as regards re-consideration of the petitioner’s representation, Mr. Sentiyanger, learned counsel has placed reliance in the decision of the Supreme Court dated 25.04.2019 passed in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 321/2018 which was preferred, inter alia, seeking premature release of the petitioner therein, on the ground that he had already been 30 years of imprisonment and that with remission, total sentence undergone was above 30 years.
