JUDGEMENT Agarwal, J. :- The petitioner has come up with a grievance that the State of Maharashtra has not commuted his sentence though he has undergone more than 14 years imprisonment. 2. The petitioner was prosecuted for having committed the murder of a prostitute by name Lilabai for whom the petitioner was working as a pimp. By judgement and order dt. 1st Jan. 1976 he was convicted under S.302 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. The petitioner having already undergone over 14 years of imprisonment has approached this Court contending that the State Government be directed to commute his sentence and release him from imprisonment. 3. This petition is resisted by the State by filing the affidavit of Jayant Janardan Deshmukh, Desk Officer, Home Department, Mantralaya, Bombay. In the said affidavit it has been, inter alia, stated that the petitioner, prior to the order of conviction, was unemployed and working as a pimp of the deceased Lilabai. He desired that the deceased should live with him as his beloved. Since she did not accept the same, he had murdered her. It is further stated that taking into account the remissions and set off, the petitioner has suffered 19 years, 5 months and 1 day imprisonment as on the 31st Jan. 1988. However, in view of the unfavourable police report, the Government decided not to consider the petitioner's case for computation at this stage and that it should be reviewed periodically before every six months till the final decision is taken. It is finally stated that the petitioner had been convicted twice for jail offences and his jail record was not satisfactory. 4. Shri More, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the police report, if any, could relate only to the period prior to the date of the conviction of the petitioner and such a report ought not to have been taken into account as the petitioner had thereafter suffered the long term of sentence of 14 years. He further submitted that if the petitioner had been found guilty of jail offences, he had suffered the penalty for the same. According to Shri More, this is a fit case where the Petitioner's sentence be ordered to be commuted and he be directed to be released forthwith. 5. He further submitted that if the petitioner had been found guilty of jail offences, he had suffered the penalty for the same. According to Shri More, this is a fit case where the Petitioner's sentence be ordered to be commuted and he be directed to be released forthwith. 5. Shri Kachare, the learned Public Prosecutor resisted the aforesaid prayer on placing reliance upon the case of Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1961 SC 600 : (1961 (1) Cri LJ 736), wherein it has been held that, when a convict was transported for life that would mean that he was required to suffer imprisonment for life. There is no provision of law where under a sentence of life imprisonment, without any formal remission by appropriate Government, can be automatically treated as one for a definite period. Section 57 of the Indian Penal Code does not say that transportation for life shall be deemed to be transportation for twenty years for all purposes; nor does the amended Section which substitutes the words 'imprisonment for life' for 'transportation for life' enable the drawing of any such all embracing fiction. A sentence of transportation for life or imprisonment for life must prima facie be treated as transportation or imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convicted person's natural life. Unless the sentence of imprisonment of life is commuted or remitted by appropriate authority under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, viz. S.56 or the Cri P.C. (old) S.402 (new S.432), a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment is bound in law to serve the life term in prison. 6. According to Shri Kachare, the petitioner cannot be said to have a right to have his sentence commuted and it is entirely the discretion of the State Government whether to or not to commute the sentence. If the State Government has exercised its discretion, no fault could be found with the same. The petition is thus devoid of any substance and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Shri Kachare, the learned Public Prosecutor has produced the relevant record for our perusal. If the State Government has exercised its discretion, no fault could be found with the same. The petition is thus devoid of any substance and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Shri Kachare, the learned Public Prosecutor has produced the relevant record for our perusal. The police report to which a reference has been made in the affidavit in reply referred to above, shows that the petitioner was a footpath dweller leading his life as a pimp in Foras Road area, that the petitioner is a man of no morals and was also in the groups of anti-social elements. In our judgement, though it cannot be said that the petitioner's antecedents prior to the order of conviction are irrelevant, however, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has already undergone over 14 years of imprisonment it would be a debatable issue whether the State Government would be justified in refusing to commute the sentence of the petitioner only on the basis of the antecedents which relate back to over 14 years. Furthermore, the petitioner was found guilty of two jail offences, one on 21st June, 1979 which is almost nine years back and the other on 5th May, 1984. It is true that the offence of 1979 was serious inasmuch as the petitioner had refused to go for work himself and had instigated other persons also not to go for work and organised work strike on mass scale in jail. He has, however, suffered the punishment for 60 days, separate confinement for 60 days and 60 days' remission was forfeited. In respect of the offence of 1984, the petitioner was charged of manhandling an under-trial prisoner, when the petitioner was reduced in rank. In our judgement, this is a fit case where the State Government should reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations contained hereinabove and decide whether the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is liable to be commuted. 8. With the aforesaid observations we dismiss the petition and discharge the rule. Order accordingly.