JUDGEMENT

Das, J. :- The undisputed fact is that the petitioner has been convicted under S.302 I.P.C. by the Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Sessions Trial No. 30 of 1970 and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The judgement of the Additional Sessions Judge has been confirmed in appeal by this court in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1971. The sentence has also been upheld. During the course of imprisonment, the petitioner was released on furlough for a period of fourteen days and he again surrendered on 28-12-1978. Admittedly the petitioner is now undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment in the aforesaid sessions case. The Inspector General of Prisons submitted the case of the petitioner to State Government for consideration for his premature release in pursuance of R.518 of the Orissa Jail Manuah. The Government in Law Department rejected the reference for premature release and suggested for consideration of the case after one year. The petitioner contends that on a petition for remission of sentence, the Collector made some enquiry from the Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police made an enquiry from the Officer-in-charge, Pattamundai. The Officer-in-charge intimated that the petitioner was undergoing sentence in another sessions trial. It is contended that, in fact, that sessions case related to another person though bearing the same name as the petitioner and during the period of alleged occurrence of that case the petitioner was inside the prison. It is contended that due to wrong information given by the Officer in-charge, the petitioner has been detained in jail and, as such, he has prayed for issue of habeas corpus for his release.

3. The State, in the counter, has stated that there has been no remission of the sentence nor there has been any order by the State Government for remitting the period of imprisonment as made by the court in the sessions case. Therefore, the petition for habeas corpus is not maintainable. It is further contended that in the other case the conviction was for four years only and that period has already expired by 1978 and, as such, that case has no bearing on the present case. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Dr. B. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Orissa, AIR 1971 SC 2197, that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be granted to a person undergoing sentence of imprisonment imposed on him by a competent court. It has been clearly stated :

"In proceedings for a writ of habeas corpus the Supreme Court, as a general rule, does not go into the questions whether the cases against the petitioner are not true and they have been engineered by some high placed individuals for mala fide reasons".

The Supreme Court also in Maru Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2147 : (1980 Cri LJ 1440) observed as follows (at pp. 1451 and 1452 of Cri LJ) :

"Ordinarily, where a sentence is for a definite term, the calculus of remissions may benefit the prisoner to instant release at that point where the subtraction results in zero. Here, we are concerned with life imprisonment and so we come upon another concept bearing on the nature of the sentence which has been highlighted in Godse's case (1961) 3 SCR 440 : (AIR 1961 SC 600). Where the sentence is indeterminate and of uncertain duration, the result of subtraction from an uncertain quantity is still an uncertain quantity and release of the prisoner cannot follow except on some fiction of quantification of a sentence of uncertain duration. Godse was sentenced to imprisonment for life. He had earned considerable remissions which would have rendered him eligible for release had life sentence been equated with 20 years of imprisonment a la S.55 I.P.C. On the basis of a rule which did make that equation, Godse sought his release through a writ petition under Art.32 of the Constitution. He was rebuffed by this Court. A Constitution Bench, speaking through Subba Rao, J., took the view that a sentence of imprisonment for life was nothing l