IMPORTANT POINTS
Remission earned would accrue and accumulate to the credit of the prisoner by his good conduct and behaviour in jail. Of course, there would be appropriate mechanism to assess and decide whether the prisoner has earned remission by good conduct. Remission earned is added to the period of imprisonment to make up the term of sentence awarded by the court. On the other hand, when remission is granted by the Government under Section 432 of the Code, it enables the prisoner to have a premature release from jail.

JUDGMENT :

The writ petitioners are the wives of some of the accused in the case S.C. No. 01/2013 on the file of the Special Court for the Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam.

2. The husbands of the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced to undergo different periods of sentence of rigorous imprisonment for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 307 and 153A read with 120B IPC, Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and also under Section 16 read with 18 and Section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “UAPA”). The aforesaid convicted persons are lodged in the Central Prisons at Viyyur and Kannur.

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that their husbands are denied the benefit of remission of sentence earned by them under Section 72 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on the ground that they are persons convicted for offences under the UAPA, which is a Central Act. The petitioners have got a further grievance that their husbands are not granted the benefit of police escort on visit of near relatives, once in six months, as provided under Rule 415 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').

4. The National Investigation Agency (for short 'NIA'), the fifth respondent in the writ petition, has filed a detailed counter affidavit.

5. Heard Sri.K.S.Madhusoodhanan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.M.Ajay, learned Special Public Prosecutor for NIA and also the learned Public Prosecutor who appeared for respondents 1 to 4.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that remission earned by a convict under Section 72 of the Act cannot be denied on the ground that he is a person convicted for an offence under the UAPA, a Central Act. Learned counsel would contend that there is distinction between remission earned under Section 72 of the Act and remission granted by the Government under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). Learned counsel would also point out that another person convicted by the same court in the same case has been granted remission pursuant to the direction given by this Court in Ext.P3 judgment.

7. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the NIA contended that the power to grant remission to a convict is vested with the appropriate Government and in the case of a person convicted of an offence under the UAPA, a Central Act, the appropriate Government is the Central Government. Learned Special Public Prosecutor, in support of the aforesaid contention, has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Sriharan: (2016) 7 SCC 1. Learned Special Public Prosecutor would contend that the State Government has no power to grant remission to a person convicted for an offence under the UAPA, a Central Act, whether it be under Section 432 of the Code or under Section 72 of the Act.

8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has referred to various passages in Sriharan (especially paragraphs 127, 130, 131, 133 and 135 to 142 and 180 as they figure in SCC journal) to buttress his contention that when a person is convicted for an offence under a Central Act, it is only the Central Government which has got power to grant him remission of sentence. It is not necessary to extract the aforesaid passages here. Suffice it to state that the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Sriharan (supra) is with regard to the power of granting remission under Section 432 of the Code and not with regard to remission which is earned by a convict under the prison rules of the States for good conduct or good behaviour.

9. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the NIA also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in State of Gujarat v. Lal Singh:(2016) 8 SCC 370 in support of his contentions. The decision in Lal Singh (supra) has no application to the facts of