(1) PENDING disposai ofthe appeal filed against their convictions under S. 147/148 and 302 read with S. 149 or 34 IPC,the appellants seek remission of sentence and release in terms of G.O./MS No. 580/Home (Prisons C) Department dated 20/10/1984 ofthe Andhra Pradesh government.

(2) IN view ofthe limited question for consid ration by us, there is no need to set outthe provisions ofthe GO orthe manner of their inter-pretation. Suffice it to say thatthe GO has been issued by the govern-ment for granting remission to certain catgories of prisoners "to com-memoratethe occasion ofthe anniversary ofthe formation ofthe Andhra Pradesh State on 1/11/1984 andthe restoration of dem-ocratie ruie inthe State".

(3) IN a brief affidavit-in-reply filed bythe State, it has been stated in para 4 as follows:

"IT is respecifully-submitted thatthe said GO is not applicable after 1/11/1984 and furtherthe remission can oniy be granted tothe prisoners who are actually in jail atthe time of issuance ofthe said GO. the appellants herein were on bail by virtue ofthe order of this Honble court. Since they were not in jail atthe time of issuance ofthe above GO they cannot daim to be released by applying this GO to. them."

(4) MR. Subba Rao, leamed counsel forthe appellants assailedthe reason given bythe State for denying remission of sentence tothe appel-lants as being manifestly wrong becausethe GO nowheresets out that the benefit of remission would be confined to prisoners who were actual-ly in jail onthe date ofthe GO and not to others who were on bail. We fnd merit inthe contention becausethe scheme of remission formulated underthe GO is with reference tothe period of sentence actually undergone by different classes of prisoners and inthe case of somethe period of actual sentence together withthe remissions earned for reck-oningthe total sentence.the GO does not stipulate that in order to get the benefit of remissionthe prisoners must actually be in jail onthe date the GO was issued. lt therefore follows thatthe ground set out bythe State government for excludingthe opration ofthe GO tothe appel-lants is clearly unsustainable.

(5) MR. Choudhri, learned/eounsel forthe State contended that even if prisoners who were on barfonthe date ofthe GO are entitled to daim remission in terms ofthe GO, the appellants are not entitled tothe benefit of remission because they have completed oniy five years of actual sentence and not seven years of actual sentence and ten years of total sentence as laid down in clause (a) of para 2. Mr. Choudhri stated that clause (a) and clause (b) of para 2 ofthe GO envisage two different kinds of life convicts viz. those under clause (a) being persons who have been convicted for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and those falling under clause (b) (referred to as "other lifers") being persons who have been convicted for offences for whichthe maximum sentence provided for is oniy imprisonment for life and not death sentence and by reason of this distinctionthe appellants cannot rely upon clause (ft) of para 2 and seek remission inasmuch as they have been convicted for an offence of murder punishable with death or imprison-ment for life, Mr. Subba Rao countered this statement by pointing out that both clauses (a) and (b) refer to S. 433-A Criminal Procedure Code and as such there is no scope for any differentiation being made betweenthe life convicts referred to in clause (a) and clause (b) inthe manner sought to be done by Mr. Choudhri.

(6) WE do not feel called upon to go intothe question whetherthe appellants would fall under clause (a) or clause (b) of para 2 ofthe GO as it is forthe State government to interpretthe GO and dcidethe matter. We are confining our order tothe limited question whetherthe ground set out inthe counter-affidavit for denying remission tothe appellants underthe GO viz. that they were not in jail but were on bail at the timethe GO is a tena