JUDGMENT 1. - This application has been submitted by applicant Maniya alias Mani Ram from Central Jail, Jodhpur. The applicant aforesaid was prosecuted and charged under section 302, I.P.C. before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar. He was acquitted of the said charge by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, but on appeal this court by its order dated May 9, 1975, set aside the acquittal of the applicant and convicted him for the offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. By its order aforesaid, this Court directed that "Credit shall be given for the period for which the accused had already remained in custody,in counting his sentence." 2. By this application, the applicant has submitted that in view of the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Prisoners (Shortening of Sentence) Rules, 1958, the applicant is entitled to have his case placed before the Advisory Board and that suitable directions may be issued to the concerned authorities for placing the case of the applicant before the Advisory Board. In the application the applicant has stated that the reason why the case of the applicant had not been placed before the Advisory Board is that the State Government has issued a direction on 22-7-1980 whereby it had directed that cases of all those convicts who have undergone 14 years sentence without remission should be placed before the Advisory Board. The applicant has submitted that the aforesaid order contained in the Circular dated 22-7-1980 has been issued in the light of the provisions contained in section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the said provisions are not applicable to the case of the applicant because he had been convicted prior to 18-12-1978. 3. We have heard Mr. Doongar Singh learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Mr. Doongar Singh has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Maru Ram v. Union of India (A.I.R. 1980 S. C. 2147) and has submitted that the provisions of section 433A Cr. P.C. have been held to be prospective and that they are not applicable to the persons who have been convicted prior to the coming into force of the said provisions, i.e. 18-12-1978. The submission of Mr. Doongar Singh is that the present applicant had been convicted prior to 18-12-1978 and, therefore, the provisions of S. 433A Cr. P.C. have been held to be prospective and that they are not applicable to the persons who have been convicted prior to the coming into force of the said provisions, i.e. 18-12-1978. The submission of Mr. Doongar Singh is that the present applicant had been convicted prior to 18-12-1978 and, therefore, the provisions of S. 433A Cr. P.C. are not applicable to him and he is entitled to have his case considered in accordance with the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Prisoners (Shortening of Sentence) Rules, 1958. Therefore,Mr. Doongar Singh contends that under the provisions of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Shortening of Sentence) Rules, 1958, the term life imprisonment has been defined to mean imprisonment for a period of 20 yrs. and the applicant is entitled to have his case considered on his completing ⅔rd of the said sentence and for the purpose of computing ⅔rd of the sentence the imprisonment already undergone prior to the conviction has also to be taken into account. In support of the aforesaid submission Mr. Doongar Singh has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashrra v. Kalu Shivram ( AIR 1980 S.C. 879 ). 4. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Maru Rams case (supra) there is no doubt that the provisions of section 433 A. Cr. P.C. would be applicable only to the persons who have been convicted after the said provisions were inserted in the Code of Criminal Procedure, i.e. after 18-12-1978 and all persons who had been convicted prior to 18-12-1978 would be governed by the provisions of the relevant rules relating to shortening of sentence which had been in force in the various States. In other words, the case of the applicant would be governed by the Rajasthan Prisoner's (Shortening of Sentence) Rules, 1958, and the provisions contained in the letter of the State Government dated 22-7-1980 cannot apply to the case of the applicant. The applicant would, therefore, be entitled to have his case considered by the Advisory Board in case he has completed ⅔rd of the sentence as required under the Rajasthan Prisoners (Shortening of Sentence) Rules, 1958. 5. The applicant would, therefore, be entitled to have his case considered by the Advisory Board in case he has completed ⅔rd of the sentence as required under the Rajasthan Prisoners (Shortening of Sentence) Rules, 1958. 5. For the purpose of computing ⅔rd of the sentence, it would be necessary for the authorities to take into consideration on the period for which the applicant had remained in custody during the investigation, inquiry and trial in view of the direction given by this court in its judgment dated 9th May, 1975 and in the judgement of the Supreme Court in the State of Maharashtra v. Kalu Shivrams case. We find that the case of State of Maharashtra v. Kalu Shivrym , the Supreme Court had altered the conviction of the respondent from one under section 326/34 to under section 302/34, I.P.C. and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and while doing so, the Supreme Court directed that the respondents would be entitled to the benefit of section 428, Cr. P.C. This shows that the provisions of sec 428, Cr. P.C. are applicable to persons who have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. 6. We, therefore, direct the State Government to place the case of the applicant before the Advisory Board in case he has fulfilled the requirements of the Rajasthan Prisoner's (Shortening of Sentence) Rules, 1958. A copy of this order may be sent to the Inspector General of Prisons as well as to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur.Order Accordingly. *******