A convict's plea for premature release/remission is governed by the policy prevalent at the time of conviction, unless a subsequent policy provides a more beneficial regime, in which case the more liberalized provisions must be applied.

O R D E R

1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is at the instance of a convict who has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ quashing the impugned Rejection Signature Not Verified of the representation dated 28.10.2025 and set the Digitally signed by BORRA LM VALLI petitioner at liberty’

Date: 2026.03.19 Reason:

(ii) Declare that the rejection of the representation by an impugned order dated 28.10.2025 is illegal and violative of Constitutional Guarantees.

(iii) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper and in the circumstances of the case”

3. It appears from the materials on record that the petitioner, along with two other co-accused was put to trial for the offence punishable under Sections 364, 302, 404 and 201 read with Section

109 of the Indian Penal Code respectively (for short, “the IPC”).

4. The Trial Court held the petitioner herein and one of the co- accused guilty of the offence with which they were charged. The other co-accused came to be acquitted by the Trial Court.

5. The petitioner and the co-accused went in appeal before the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted both the petitioner and the co-accused.

6. Being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court, the original complainant came before this Court and challenged the judgment and order of the High Court acquitting the petitioner and the co-accused by filing Criminal Appeal No.1216/2008. The appeal before this Court preferred by the complainant came to be allowed vide the judgment and order dated 04.08.2008.

7. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court came to be reversed and the original judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court came to be restored.

8. Since 2008, the petitioner is in custody, undergoing life imprisonment.

9. The petitioner preferred a representation addressed to the competent authority of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and prayed for remission of the sentence. The State Government declined to remit the sentence having regard to its G.O.Ms. No.71 of Home (Paroles and HRC) Department dated 17.04.2025.

10. While declining to grant remission, the State Government vide letter dated 28.10.2025 informed the petitioner as under:-

“4. The Government vide G.O.Ms. No.71, Home (Paroles & HRC) Dept., dated 17-04-2025 has issued consistent policy ie., permanent guidelines for grant of special remission to life convicted prisoners for their premature release. In the said G.O., as per the barring clause (xi) of Para-7, life convicts who are convicted for kidnapping and related offences U/s 363-A, 364, 364-A, 366, 366-A, 366-B, 367, 368, 369, 372 and 373 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 are not eligible for grant of special remission.”

11. Thus, it appears from the aforesaid that the State Government seeks to rely upon its policy of 17.04.2025. Its policy of 17.04.2025 bars life convicts convicted for kidnapping and related offences enumerated in para 4 referred to above from seeking remission.

12. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the State.

13. The law as regards plea for remission of sentence is well settled. When a convict prays for remission of sentence, the relevant date as regards the applicability of a particular policy would be the date on which the court