The main legal point established in the judgment is that remissions earned under the Constitution and Cr.P.C. are outside the purview of the power of forfeiture conferred on the Inspector General of Prisons under the Kerala Prisons Rules.

SUBRAMONIAN POTI, Actg. C.J.

These are two petitions we received from the same convict undergoing sentence of imprisonment in the Central Prison at Cannanore. The second petition followed the earlier one. The complaint in both the petitions is the same. Actually the second petition appears to be by way of reminder to this Court of the earlier petition. We have taken on file these petitions, numbered them and treated as petitions for issue of habeas corpus. We ordered notice on these petitions. The learned Advocate General appeared and placed the facts fairly before us. The petitioner was not represented by counsel. We requested Sri K. R. B. Kainial to assist us in this case and present the case for the petitioner. We place on record our appreciation of the efforts of the learned counsel in having elaborately gone into the matter and in presenting to us the case of the petitioner very effectively.

2. Before coming to this Court the petitioner had made several approaches to the Government seeking his release in view of orders of remission passed by the Government from time to time. But evidently taking the view that he was not entitled to the benefit of such remissions he was not released.

3. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in Sessions Case No. 13/72 of the Sessions Court of Alleppey. He was so convicted on 8-8-1972. He was undergoing the sentence of imprisonment for life in the Central Prison at Trivandrum from 8-8-1972 to 26-7-1978. There appears to have been a mass hunger strike in the Trivandrum Central Jail in November 1977. Ultimately it ended in a jail riot and murder of one of the jail employees. In Sessions Case No. 5/78 before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge's Court of Trivandrum the petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 304 Part II and certain other provisions of the Code. He was sentenced to 7 years under Section 304 Part II read with S. 149 of the Penal Code, to two months for offence under Section 427 of the Code, for one month for offence under Section 448 of the Code, for one month for offence u/s. 225(B) of the Code and for six months u/s. 148 of the I.P.C. The sentences were to be suffered only concurrently with the sentence of life imprisonment which he Was undergoing. He was transferred to the Central Prison at Cannanore on 26-7-1978 as convict No. 1505 and he is under-going imprisonment there at the moment.

4. Pursuant to the conviction arising from the jail riot on 3-11-1977 the Inspector General of Prisons issued an order on 11-9-1978 canceling all remissions earned by the petitioner up to 7-7-1978. On 31-1-1980 the Government passed G.O. (MS) 47/81/Home dt. 11-3-1981 in exercise of the powers under Art. 161 of the Constitution of India directing the premature release of all prisoners convicted by the Courts in this State who had completed eight years of imprisonment including remissions as on 31-1-1980 remitting the unexpired portion of their sentences. The period of eight years thus to be reckoned included such remissions as they had earned by 31-1-1980. The case of the petitioner before us is that he is entitled to the benefit of the above said Government order and so he is entitled to release pursuant to the order of Government G.O. (MS) 47. The report of the Superintendent of the Central Prison, Cannanore sent to this Court shows that on 31-1-1980 the petitioner had actually undergone imprisonment of 7 years 5 months and 23 days. Besides this for the period from 7-7-1978 to 31-1-1980 he had earned a remission of two months and 27 days which remission is admittedly not forfeited. Only remissions up to 7-7-1978 had been cancelled by the order of the Inspector General of Prisons. Hence with the addition of remissions earned after 7-7-1978 the sentence the petitioner had undergone accounted to a total of 7 years 8 months and 20 days. It was in this view that the benefit of the Government Order G.O. (MS) 47 was not given to the petitioner. He was s