N. D. OJHA, C. J. ( 1 ) THE three petitioners of this writ petition have been convicted u/ss. 304 (Part II) and 460 of the I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 5 years. At present, they are undergoing the imprisonment aforesaid. ( 2 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of R. 3 of the M. P. Prisoners' Release on Probation Rules 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), in so far as it provides that prisoners who have been convicted u/s. 460 of the I. P. C. , shall not be released under the M. P. Prisoners' Release on Probation Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 3 ) IT has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioners that when prisoners who have been convicted even for a much serious offence u/s. 302 of the I. P. C. are entitled to be released under the Act, R. 3, in so far as it excludes prisoners convicted u/s. 460 I. P. C. for being released under the Act, is ultra vires on the ground of being discriminatory under Art. 14 of the Constitution. It has also been urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that the purpose of the Act is to provide an opportunity to the prisoners to reform themselves after being released from jail and if in order to achieve that purpose, a prisoner sentenced u/s. 302 of the I. P. C. could be released under the Act, there was no reason why a similar opportunity may not be given to a person who has been sentenced u/s. 460 of the I. P. C. ( 4 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Advocate General, we find it difficult to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Act was never intended to be made applicable to all the prisoners as is apparent even from its preamble which reads as hereunder :"an Act to provide for the release of certain prisoners on conditions imposed by the (M. P.) Government". Section 9 of the Act confers the power on the Government to make rules. The Act was never intended to be made applicable to all the prisoners as is apparent even from its preamble which reads as hereunder :"an Act to provide for the release of certain prisoners on conditions imposed by the (M. P.) Government". Section 9 of the Act confers the power on the Government to make rules. S. 9 (4) authorises the Government to make rules consistent with the Act for defining the classes of offenders who may be conditionally released and the period of imprisonment after which they will be so released. It is in exercise of this power conferred on it by S. 9 of the Act that the rules have been framed by the State Government. As seen above, the benefit of the Act was contemplated to be conferred not on all prisoners, but only on certain prisoners on conditions imposed by the M. P. Government. In exercise of the power conferred on it in this behalf, the State Government, while framing the rules, provided in R. 3 the classes of prisoners who were not to be released under the Act. These classes of prisoners are enumerated in Cls. (a), (b), (c), (e) and (f) of R. 3. ( 5 ) IN order to find out the rationale in excluding certain classes of prisoners under R. 3 from being released under the Act, it would be useful to refer to R. 3 in extenso which reads as hereunder :"3. Classes of prisoners not to be released. The following classes of prisoners shall not be released under Act : ' (a) Those convicted of offences under the Madhya Bharat Vagrants and Habitual Offenders' and Criminals (Restrictions and Settlement) Act 1952, or any law in force in any region of the State corresponding to the said Act, or the Explosive Substances Act 1903, or under the following chapters or sections of the Indian Penal Code : Chapters V-A, VI and VII and Ss. 216 A, 224 and 225 (if it is a case of an escape from a jail); 231, 232, 303,311,328,364,376,382,385 to 389, 392 to 402, 413, 549, 460 and 489-A. (b) Those convicted under S. 7 of the Act or who are serving the unexpired sentence under sub-sec. (3) of S. 8 of the Act or whose licence has been previously revoked on account of the breach of the conditions of the licence; (c ). (3) of S. 8 of the Act or whose licence has been previously revoked on account of the breach of the conditions of the licence; (c ). Those whose applications for release, other than an application for remission of sentence under S. 8 were on a previous occasion, rejected by the Government; (d ). Those convicted by a Court-martial; (e ). Those whose applications for temporary release under S. 31-A of the Prisoners Act 1900 or rules thereunder have been rejected; (f) Those who have been prosecuted and convicted for the breach of the rules under S. 31-A of the Prisoners Act, 1900". The nature of the prisoners falling within the first part of Cl. (a) and under Cls. (b) to (e) is apparent on its face. ( 6 ) AS regards the offences under the I. P. C. enumerated in the later part of Cl. (a) of R. 3, it would be seen that Chapter V-A deals with criminal conspiracy. Chapter VI deals with offences against the State. Chapter VII deals with offences relating to army, navy and air force. S. 216-A prescribes penalty for harbouring robbers or dacoits. S. 224 deals with resistance or obstruction by a person under lawful apprehension. S. 225 deals with resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension of another person if it is a case of escape from jail. S. 231 deals with counterfeit coins. S. 232 deals with counterfeit Indian Coins. S. 303 provides punishment for murder by a life convict. S. 311 provides for punishment of a Thug which according to S. 310 means a person habitually associated with any other or others for purposes of committing robbery or child stealing by means of or accompanied with murder. S. 328 deals with causing hurt by means of poison etc. with intent to commit an offence. S. 364 deals with kidnapping or abducting in order to murder. S. 376 deals with punishment for rape, whereas S. 382 deals with theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint in order to committing of theft. S. 385 deals with putting a person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion. S. 386 deals with extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt. S. 387 deals with putting a person in fear of death or of grievous hurt in order to committing extortion. S. 385 deals with putting a person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion. S. 386 deals with extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt. S. 387 deals with putting a person in fear of death or of grievous hurt in order to committing extortion. S. 388 deals with extortion by threat or accusation of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life etc. S. 389 deals with putting a person in fear of accusation of offence in order to commit extortion. Ss. 392 to 394 deal with robbery, attempt to commit robbery and voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery respectively. S. 395 deals with punishment for dacoity, whereas S. 396 deals with dacoity with murder. S. 397 deals with robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. S. 398 deals with attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon. S. 399 deals with making preparation to commit robbery. S. 400 deals with punishment for belonging to a gang of dacoits, whereas S. 401 deals with punishment for belonging to a gang of thieves. S. 402 deals with assembly for the purpose of committing dacoity, whereas S. 413 deals with habitually dealing in stolen property. S. 449 (which seems to have been wrongly printed as S. 549) deals with house trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death. S. 460 deals with persons jointly concerned in lurking house trespass or house breaking by night punishable when death or grievous hurt is caused by one of them. S. 489-A, on the other hand, deals with counterfeiting currency notes or bank notes. ( 7 ) IT would thus be seen that the offences and persons classified under the various Cls. (a) to (e) of R. 3 constitute a class by themselves in regard to whom the State Government seems to have been of the view that they are hazardous and constitute greater peril to the peace of the society and risk to peace loving citizens. (a) to (e) of R. 3 constitute a class by themselves in regard to whom the State Government seems to have been of the view that they are hazardous and constitute greater peril to the peace of the society and risk to peace loving citizens. ( 8 ) IN so far as the submission that inasmuch as R. 3, even though provides for a person convicted u/s. 302 I. P. C. being released under the Act, it does not make a similar provision with regard to person convicted u/s. 460 I. P. C. , it was violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution, it may be pointed out that a person convicted of one offence, cannot be treated to be falling within the same category of persons who have been convicted for another offence. ( 8 ) IN so far as the submission that inasmuch as R. 3, even though provides for a person convicted u/s. 302 I. P. C. being released under the Act, it does not make a similar provision with regard to person convicted u/s. 460 I. P. C. , it was violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution, it may be pointed out that a person convicted of one offence, cannot be treated to be falling within the same category of persons who have been convicted for another offence. ( 9 ) THE power to decide the class of prisoners who were to be released under the Act and the conditions subject to which they were to be released, was conferred by the Legislature in its wisdom on the State Government. The reason for doing so seems to be obvious inasmuch as no other agency can be better informed in regard to classes of prisoners or offences which would constitute greater peril to the society and risk to the citizens. The legislative competence of the State Legislature to enact the Act has not been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is settled law that rules framed by the State Government in exercise of the statutory power conferred on it shall, so to speak, be deemed to be part of the Act itself. We have already pointed out that R. 3 does not deserve to be struck down on the ground that it, in any way, infringes Art. 14 of the Constitution. We have already pointed out that R. 3 does not deserve to be struck down on the ground that it, in any way, infringes Art. 14 of the Constitution. ( 10 ) AS regards the submission that the purpose of the Act is to provide an opportunity to the prisoners to reform themselves and consequently a prisoner convicted u/s. 460 of the I. P. C. also deserves to be given the same opportunity, suffice it to say that even if that may be accepted to be the purpose for the sake of argument, we cannot travel beyond the scheme of the Act to give effect to any such supposed purpose. The right to be released on probation is neither a fundamental right, nor a common law right, but is a statutory right and flows from the Act and the Rules framed in this behalf. In order, therefore, to find out the extent and scope of the right, the provisions in the Act and the rules appear to be the only guide. ( 11 ) IN Y. V. Srinivasmurthy v. The State of Mysore, AIR 1959 SC 894 it was held that the Court has no concern with the wisdom of the legislature and that it would be a dangerous precedent to allow the views of the members of the Court as to the serious consequences of excessive taxation to lead to a conclusion that the law is ultra vires. ( 12 ) IN Gowri Shankar v. Sales Tax Officer, AIR 1958 SC 883 the Supreme Court held that the validity of an Act depends on the legislative competence and if competency is not challenged, the Act must be a valid piece of legislation whatever may have been the intention which led to the enactment. ( 13 ) IN Sardar Sarupsingh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1959 SC 860 the Supreme Court pointed out that in interpreting a statute, the Court cannot be called upon to embark on an enquiry or into public or investigate into questions of political wisdom or even to pronounce upon motives of the legislature in enacting a law which it is otherwise competent to make. ( 14 ) IN the result, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .