JUDGMENT (ORAL) G.D. Kamat, J. - Rule. By consent, to be heard forthwith. Shant Ram Vishwanath Bhaidkar, Rama Vishwanath Bhaidkar and Shivram Harijan (for short prisoners) are incorporated in jail pursuant to their conviction and sentence for life imprisonment. This petition is instituted on their behalf as the prisoners arc presently in jail out of the State of Goa. The prisoners have already completed by undergoing over 15 years of actual substantive imprisonment in jail. 2. This petition was brought for hearing on rule some time in April 1994. By an order on 27th April 1994, pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Court directed the jail authorities to consider the applications of the prisoners for their release on parole. We are told by the learned Government Advocate that the applications for parole have been rejected. 3. The petition prays for a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the decision of Prison Advisory Review Committee based on its report dated 13th December, 1993 rejecting the prisoners' plea for prymature release. A further writ is sought commanding the respondents to forthwith release the prisoners. This Court had earlier directed in some other petition filed by the prisoners that the said Advisory Review Committee should consider their cases for premature release and accordingly, the Advisory Committee had met on 13th December, 1993. 4. The case has a chequered history and we will succinctly point out as to what made this Court to call upon the Advisory Review Committee to consider the premature release of all the three prisoners. It was set out in that petition that all the three prisoners have, on the date of filing of that petition, undergone actual and substantive sentences for more than 15 years. 5. In Sessions Case No. 16 of 1979, these three prisoners along with the petitioner Vishwanath, Ashok Bhaidkar and one Laxman Rama Deuskar, were charge sheeted under sections 145, 148, 302 read with 34 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. In Sessions Case No. 16 of 1979, these three prisoners along with the petitioner Vishwanath, Ashok Bhaidkar and one Laxman Rama Deuskar, were charge sheeted under sections 145, 148, 302 read with 34 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case against these six persons including the present prisoners, was that they formed an unlawful assembly, armed themselves with deadly weapons and with intention to commit murder and grievous hurt, used violence against one Pundlik, Namdeo, Madhukar and Shridhar Bhaidkar and in furtherance of common intention, committed murders of Pundlik Bhaidkar, Namdeo Bhaidkar and Madhukar Bhaidkar by assaulting them with spades and iron rods. The second part of the charge was that on the same occasion, in furtherance of common intention, they had attempted to murder Shridhar Bhaidkar, who was their uncle by assaulting him with spade and iron rods with such intention and knowledge that if death had followed, they would have been guilty of murder. On the basis of the prosecution evidence, by the judgment and order recorded on 9th March 1981, the learned Sessions Judge convicted five accused barring Vishwanath Bhaidkar - present petitioner, who was acquitted. 6. The conviction and sentences were challenged before the Court of Judicial Commissioner but as in the meantime, the learned Sessions Judge had become the Acting Judicial Commissioner, the Supreme Court transferred the matter to the High Court at Bombay and directed the Bombay High Court to dispose of that appeal vide Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 1982. The Division Bench of this Court, pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court, disposed of the appeal by its order dated 7th October 1982, a little before the extension of the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to Goa. The Appellate Court found that the conviction of prisoners Shantaram, Rama and Shivram can not be faulted but the conviction of Ashok Bhaidkar and Laxman Rama Douskar could not be sustained under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and instead convicted them under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed a sentence of four years. 7. Some time in the year 1989, Rama v. Bhaidkar - one of the prisoners - instituted one Criminal Misc. Application No. 85 of 1989 for direction to the Advisory Review Committee to consider his case for premature release. 7. Some time in the year 1989, Rama v. Bhaidkar - one of the prisoners - instituted one Criminal Misc. Application No. 85 of 1989 for direction to the Advisory Review Committee to consider his case for premature release. The matter was disposed of by the single Judge of this Court, Kamat, J. Upon examination of the case of Rama Bhaidkar, it was found that as on the date of disposal of the Misc. Application, Rama had not undergone actual and substantive imprisonment for 14 years, which was required vide section 433 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A detailed reference was made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Maru Ram v. Union of India1, which had considered the challenge to the newly incorporated section 433-A in the Code of Criminal, Procedure, 1973 which was brought into force from 1 8th December 1978. The Supreme Court in that case held that from the date of coming into force of newly incorporated section 433-A, all those prisoners, who have been convicted after 18th December 1978, shall not be entitled for consideration of their premature release before completion of substantive sentence of 14 years whereas the prisoners, who had been convicted prior to 18th December 1978, would be governed by the relevant rules or the schemes of the Central or State Governments framed either under Article 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India or section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. However, during the course of hearing, it was indicated that pursuant to the Government Resolution made in the year 1969, some rules had been framed by the Goa Government known as "Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, Review of Sentences Rules, 1969" and which were brought into force from 1st December 1969. It was observed in the said proceedings that the Rules made in the year 1969 have become archaic in view of incorporation of new section 433 -A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was brought into force on 18th December 1978 and regard being to the observations/directions given by the Supreme Court in Maru Ram's case (supra) review of the Rules of l969 is necessary. 9. 9. Regard being had to the directions and observations of the Supreme Court that the State Governments are required to frame rules and schemes for consideration of premature release of prisoners under section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also in respect of Article 161 of Constitution of India, a suit of direction was made to the Government of Goa that apart from the provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure which cannot whittle down the constitutional powers vide Article 161, Goa Government should make appropriate rules, and schemes in the matter of premature release. Equally, it was observed that once a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment has undergone actual and substantive imprisonment for 14 years, it is open to the State Government to consider premature release of the prisoner and, therefore, new rules are required to be framed in the light of the newly incorporated provision of section 433-A and needless to repeat obviously based upon the decision of the Supreme Court Maru Ram’s case (supra). The copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Chief Secretary. We regret to note that nothing has been done in the matter. 10. Criminal Writ Petition No. 12 of 1993 was instituted in this Court, which came to be disposed of by an order of the Division Bench on 27th October 1993. It was the case of the prisoners therein that they were transferred from Centre Jail, Aguada, Goa to a jail at Gulbarga/Bellary in Karnataka State. They prayed in that petition that since they have completed 14 years of actual imprisonment, they be directed to be released from jail. The Division Bench, however, felt that, since the Advisory Review Committee, headed by District Judge, is in the field under the Goa, Daman and Diu Review of sentences Rules 1969, a direction could be made to that Committee to consider the case of the three prisoners for their premature release in view of the fact that they have undergone over 14 years of actual imprisonment. Accordingly, we directed the Advisory Review Committee to hold a meeting within a period of four (4) weeks and consider the case of the prisoners and place the opinion/recommendation before the State Government. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the Advisory Review Committee met on 13th December, 1993 but held adversely against their release. Accordingly, we directed the Advisory Review Committee to hold a meeting within a period of four (4) weeks and consider the case of the prisoners and place the opinion/recommendation before the State Government. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the Advisory Review Committee met on 13th December, 1993 but held adversely against their release. This decision of the Advisory Review Committee has now become the bone of contention in the present petition. 11. As on this date, we are told that the prisoners are lodged in two different jails Gulbarga and Bellari in the State of Karnataka. 12. Shri Robello, learned counsel appearing for the prisoners, has mounted a very serious criticism on the manner and against the approach of the Advisory Review Committee in dealing with the matter as reflected in its report dated 13th December 1993. According to the learned counsel, the questions to which the Advisory Review Committee is required to address itself has been given a complete go-by and the Committee was at all the times influenced by the judgment delivered in Sessions Case No. 16 of 1979 in which they were convicted. He urged that vital aspects required to be considered such as the circumstances of the offence committed, reformative tendency and behaviour in jail etc. are totally ignored in flagrant violation of Rules of 1969. 12. To appreciate these grievances, we may usefully make a reference to the concerned Rules of 1969 for review of sentences. Rules 1, 2 and 3 say: "The cases of all prisoners sentenced to more than 14 years imprisonment or to transportation and imprisonment for terms exceeding in the aggregate 14 years shall, when the term of imprisonment undergone together with all remission earned or gathered amounts to 14 years, be reported to the Inspector General, two months in advance of the date they become due. The following documents shall be sent along with the 14 years' report :- (1) Nominal Roll in Fornl No. Jail 117 (in duplicate); (2) Copies of warrants (Duplicate); (3) Copy of judgment; (4) Register of prisoner (Advisory Committee Form No. SPL.I.G. 39); (5) Statement of character and antecedents; (6) History Tickets. The following documents shall be sent along with the 14 years' report :- (1) Nominal Roll in Fornl No. Jail 117 (in duplicate); (2) Copies of warrants (Duplicate); (3) Copy of judgment; (4) Register of prisoner (Advisory Committee Form No. SPL.I.G. 39); (5) Statement of character and antecedents; (6) History Tickets. The following information shall also be furnished in the following letter:- (1) Nature of the crime of the prisoner; (2) Factors in the causation of crime apart from those mentioned in the copy of the judgment; (3) Has the reformative treatment programme helped in the transformation of the prisoner and if so, in what way? (4) What is the post release programme of the prisoner? 2(a)(i) The District Magistrate of the District in which a convicted prisoner resided and convicted shall be consulted by the Inspector General of Prisons and his definite opinion about the premature release of the prisoner obtained with detailed reasons. (ii) The District Magistrate of the District in which the convict was convicted need not be consulted provided that it is neither the District of origin or normal residence of the convict nor the District in which the offence was committed. The Inspector General will then submit such cases to Government for orders with his remarks. (b) Notwithstanding anything contained in rules 2 8 of the Goa, Daman and Din Prisoners (Remissions) Rules 1965, no prisoner who has been sentenced to transportation for life or more than 14 years imprisonment or to transportation and imprisonment for term exceeding the aggregate 14 years, shall be released on completion of this term of transportation or imprisonment or both as the case may be, including all remission unless a report with respect to such prisoner has been made under the Rule 1 above and orders of Government have been received thereon with regard to the date of his final release. Advisory Board :- 3. An Advisory Committee shall be set up in the Central Jail in which long term prisoners are imprisoned, to assess the actual severity of the sentence and to judge how fat it has a salutary and reformative influence on the prisoner with reference to the record of the prisoners concerned, such record consisting of the following documents: 1. Character and antecedents of the prisoner; 2. Copies of judgments or heads of charges to jury; 3. Character and antecedents of the prisoner; 2. Copies of judgments or heads of charges to jury; 3. The statement showing the particulars of the cases to be reviewed by the Committee in Form No. SPL.I.G. 39; 4. Opinions of the District Magistrate and District Superintendent of Police concerned. The committee shall consist of the District Magistrate, Sessions Judge, District Superintendent of Police and two nominated local members. The District Magistrate shall be the president of the Committee and the Superintendent of Aguada Central Jail, its secretary." What can be called out from the aforesaid rules is that, while considering the review of sentences for premature release, it is necessary for the Committee to take into consideration nature of the crime, factors in the causation of crime and that too apart room those mentioned in the copy of judgment and more importantly, whether the reformative treatment programme helped in the transformation of the prisoner and to also note the post-release programme of the concerned prisoner. Indeed it is true that the opinions of the District Magistrate and the District Superintendent of Police concerned shall have to be taken into consideration. 13. Not less important is Rule 3 by which it is clearly incumbent upon the Advisory Committee to assess the actual severity of the sentence and to judge how for it has a salutary and reformative influence on the prisoner with reference to the record of the prisoner concerned and that record must have relation to the character and antecedents of the prisoner. 14. The report of the Advisory Committee is at Exh. A to the petition. The Advisory Review Committee has recorded as under -: "All these prisoners have, in fact, completed 14 years of sentence. The District Magistrate, North has not recommended the case of the prisoners for premature release. It is stated in the report of the District Magistrate that there was no previous dispute between two families. In fact, the entire dispute took place on account of the field and it has been mentioned in the judgment of the then Sessions Judge that it was a case of family fund. Though the prisoners are found guilty for having murdered three persons and for having attempted to murder fourth one, the then Sessions Judge thought it fit not to impose death penalty. The sentence cannot be said to be severe under the circumstances. Though the prisoners are found guilty for having murdered three persons and for having attempted to murder fourth one, the then Sessions Judge thought it fit not to impose death penalty. The sentence cannot be said to be severe under the circumstances. Mercy had been shown to the applicants by the then Sessions Judge who convicted the prisoners as can be seen from the judgment. More over, it is reported by the Superintendent of Police that the relations between the families of the prisoners and the victims are still strained and there is a mixed response for premature release of the prisoners amongst the neighbours and the villagers. The Superintendent of Police further stated in the case of Rama Bhaidkar and Shantaram Bhaidkar that after they are released, they will go to Bombay. This act also gives clear indication that the said prisoners shall not be accepted in the society in Goa. It is also reported by Superintendent of Police that the prisoners had threatened the family members of the victims in the past. Taking into consideration the material placed before the Advisory Committee, including the reports of District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, the Advisory committee, is of the view that the case of prisoners Rama Bhaidkar, Shantaram Bhaidkar and Shivram Harijan is not a fit case for recommending for premature release, especially since the prisoners had committed 3 murders and attempt to murder of fourth one. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee does not recommend the case of the prisoners for premature release." 14. There is a lot of merit in the criticism leveled by the learned counsel for the prisoners that the Advisory Review Committee has really not addressed itself to considerations required to be looked into as mentioned in Rule 1 read with Rule 3 of the Rules of l969. That apart, it is not understood as to how the Advisory Review Committee got itself influenced by the observations if the learned Sessions Judge while disposing of the Sessions case, convicting the three prisoners along with other persons. It is a foregone confusion that Sic. because of conviction in that sessions the prisoners are sundergoing imprisonment for life. Under the Rules, there cannot be re-appreciation of the judgment of conviction and the Committee cannot limit itself to the period prior to term of conviction but look into the period past conviction. It is a foregone confusion that Sic. because of conviction in that sessions the prisoners are sundergoing imprisonment for life. Under the Rules, there cannot be re-appreciation of the judgment of conviction and the Committee cannot limit itself to the period prior to term of conviction but look into the period past conviction. The report of the Advisory Review Committee, therefore, suffers from several errors' apparent on the face of record and Rules. 15. We will presently demonstrate that the Advisory Review Committee has totally bungled itself on several aspects of the matter, which they were bound to look into and we will list them one by one. 16. The learned Sessions Judge, while convicting the prisoners along with other two more persons, namely Ashok Bhaidkar (brother of Rama and Shantaram) and Laxman Rama Douskar, in para No. 24 hold thus :- "All the accused are young men, their age ranging from 18 to 26 years. The record abundantly show that there-existed a family fund and that the whole incident was not premeditated and occurred in the spur of moment, in the heat of passion. No evidence was adduced as to establish that the accused are prone to use violence and to commit criminal offences and as to establish that the are not amenable to reformation." A little later the learned Sessions Judge observed in para No. 25 thus : "In the circumstances, considering the young age of the accused, that the whole incident occurred without any premeditation and in the heat of the moment and of passion, considering further that accused are not beyond redemption……On the contrary, I am of the firm opinion that the ends of justice will be fully met by passing the lessor penalty of life imprisonment and that the accused will regenerate themselves and turn into good citizens, taking advantage of the compassion and mercy shown by the Court. " 17. In our view, the above observations in the first place totally benefits the present prisoners. All these finding in the background of triple murder go more in favour of the prisoners for their premature release than otherwise has been held by the Advisory Review Committee. From the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, it is clear that there was no premeditation for murdering any of the persons, who were murdered on that unfortunate day. All these finding in the background of triple murder go more in favour of the prisoners for their premature release than otherwise has been held by the Advisory Review Committee. From the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, it is clear that there was no premeditation for murdering any of the persons, who were murdered on that unfortunate day. All the accused were acquitted from the charge of having formed an unlawful assembly with the intention to commit offence against the victims (sections 144 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code). The second finding is that the assault took - place in the heat and moment of passion. The further finding is that all the prisoners are of young age and that they are not beyond redemption and on the contrary, the Court held that compassion and mercy shown to them is likely to turn them into good citizens. 18. This being the story, it is not known how the Advisory Review Committee could have gone on the basis that the learned Sessions Judge has made these observations only in the light of considering whether capital punishment should be awarded to the three prisoners or whether sympathy and compassion was to be shown in sentencing them to life imprisonment. It can not be lost sight of that the learned Sessions Judge had delivered the judgment on March 9, 1981 much after the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh's case2, which clearly ruled that the capital punishment is only in rarest of rare cases. Viewed in that background and in the background of what is extracted from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, it is impossible to accept that the prisoners were tried in a case which fell under the category of rarest of rare case. 19. This is not all. There are several more circumstances in favour of the prisoners and we will point them out succinctly. For quite some time, the prisoners were either at Bellari or at Gulbarga or at those two jails. It is common ground that after completion of actual 14 years of substantive imprisonment, the Inspector General of Prisons, Karnataka made a recommendation to the Goa Government that for exemplary behaviour of the prisoners, they should be prematurely released from life imprisonment. For quite some time, the prisoners were either at Bellari or at Gulbarga or at those two jails. It is common ground that after completion of actual 14 years of substantive imprisonment, the Inspector General of Prisons, Karnataka made a recommendation to the Goa Government that for exemplary behaviour of the prisoners, they should be prematurely released from life imprisonment. The learned Government Advocate indeed says that the Review Committee and Goa Government believed that they are not bound by the recommendation made by Karnataka authorities merely because Goa prisoners were transferred from boa jail to Karnataka jail. The question as to whether the recommendation made by the Karnataka ail authority is binding on Goa Government or not is not necessary to be decided in this Petition. But the fact of recommendation and that too based upon the good behaviour of the prisoners cannot be lost sight of qua reformation. 20. The jail authorities in Goa had also recommended, after completion of substantive imprisonment of 14 years, the cases of prisoners for premature release. The Committee rejected their cases for premature release and the second rejection came when, upon direction of this Court, as mentioned earlier, the Advisory Review Committee met on 13th December, 1993. 21. We now come to a major issue. The learned Public Prosecutor has handed over a compilation to us which contains the prisoner's Normal Rolls with record and other particulars relating to the prisoners, as also various judgments delivered by this Court and the order of learned Sessions Court in which they were convicted. 22. We will now refer to the particulars of the so called Nominal Rolls of the prisoners. (i) The first prisoner is Shantaram V. Bhaidkar. His present age is 39 years. As on 20th June 1994, he has undergone actual imprisonment for 13 years 2 months and 26 days and as a under trial prisoner from 13.7.1979 to 24.3.1981, he has undergone 1 year 8 months and 11 days of imprisonment. On two occasions, it seems that, he was released on parole which is for a period of 1 month and 8 days. On computation of the above period, it is clear that as on today, Shantaram has undergone and suffered actual and substantive imprisonment of 15 years and 15 days. On two occasions, it seems that, he was released on parole which is for a period of 1 month and 8 days. On computation of the above period, it is clear that as on today, Shantaram has undergone and suffered actual and substantive imprisonment of 15 years and 15 days. The Nominal Roll further suggests that as in July 1993, Shantaram has earned remissions for 5 years 4 months 10 days and including the period of remission, Shantaram has undergone a sentence of 20 years 3 months and 17 days. In so far as his conduct is concerned, it is said to be satisfactory. Nothing adverse has been mentioned against him during the entire sentence that he has undergone. (ii) The next is Rama Bhaidkar. As on 20th June 1994, he has actually undergone a sentence of 13 Yrs. 2 months and 26 days and as an under trial prisoner 1 year 8 months and 11 days with the result that the substantive actual imprisonment is 15 years and odd. However, he was released on parole on four occasions for a total period of 77 days. Including the remissions, which is to the tune of four years, 10 days and 24 days, he has undergone a total sentence of 19 years 10 months and 1 day. His conduct is said to be satisfactory. It is said that he was working in tailoring section and this training has a salutary and reformative influence on the prisoner. (iii) In so far as Shivram N. Harijan is concern as on 20th June 1994, he has undergone 13 years 2 months and 26 days of imprisonment and as an under trial prisoner from 13th July 1979 to 24th March 1981, he has undergone 1 year 8 months and 11 days, together making actual imprisonment of 15 years and odd. He was released on parole on four occasions for a period of 120 days and considering the remissions earned by him for 5 years 3 months and 9 days, he has undergone a total sentence of 20 years 2 months and 16 days. The report further says that his conduct in the jail was satisfactory and he is working in carpentry section the jail where there is salutary and reformative influence on the prisoners. 23. The report further says that his conduct in the jail was satisfactory and he is working in carpentry section the jail where there is salutary and reformative influence on the prisoners. 23. We now come back to Rule 3 of the Rules of 1969 to consider what is the requirement of the Advisory Review Committee to address itself in the matter of review of sentences fur premature release. In the first place, it is the character and antecedents of the prisoner. As far as the character and antecedents of the prisoners are concerned, nothing adverse has be-en shown and on the contrary, as mentioned earlier, even as per the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, the assault took place without any premeditation and on the spur of the moment, that too as a result of fraud in the family over some property. The Advisory Review Committee is required to assess the actual severity of the sentence and to judge how far it has a salutary and reformative influence on the prisoners with reference to the record of the prisoner concerned. It is not necessary to dwell upon at length on this aspect of the matter. What is required to be seen is as to how far the prisoner, after his conviction and while undergoing the sentence for imprisonment for life, has shown tendency towards reformation and it is not open to the Advisory Review Committee to review the offence for which they have been convicted by the competent Court. Once the jail authorities have got nothing against the prisoners, who have spent a substantial part of their prime life of not less than 15 years within the four walls of the jail and when it is the case of the jail authorities that the prisoners have shown tendency towards reformation, it is impossible to accept that the Advisory Review Committee should have, on the basis of certain reference in the judgment of the Sessions Judge, denied them the benefit bestowed on a prisoner, who not only show reformation but also do not show tendency of reputation of crime. 24. In our view , having regard to the contents of the report, we are clearly of the view that the Review Committee has exceeded its jurisdiction on one hand and failed to exercise the jurisdiction in not considering the prisoners' behaviour and reformative aspect post-conviction. 24. In our view , having regard to the contents of the report, we are clearly of the view that the Review Committee has exceeded its jurisdiction on one hand and failed to exercise the jurisdiction in not considering the prisoners' behaviour and reformative aspect post-conviction. The Committee did not address itself on questions required to be addressed, which is nothing but failure of justice. 25. As seen earlier, it is clear now that the Goa Government has not framed any scheme or rules for premature release of prisoners either in terms of Article 161 of the Constitution of India or under section 432 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is common ground as laid down by the decision in Maru Ram's case (supra) that the State Government is obliged to framed schemes and Rules for release of prisoners once a prisoner has actually undergone substantive imprisonment for 14 years. The said decision also has laid down that powers and restrictions under section 43 3 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not affect the powers of the State Government to frame schemes and Rules or premature release, as laid down in Article 161 of the Constitution of India. In other words, under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, it is open to the State Government just as it is open to the State Government just as it is open to the President to remit and commute sentences even though a prisoner has not completed the substantive sentence of 14 years, though such power is not available for release under section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless actual sentence of 14 years is undergone. 26. A question indeed had arisen in our mind as to whether this Court should do the exercise of directing release of the prisoners in question. It was very vehementIy contended and not without justification by Shri Rebello, learned counsel that there are no specific guidelines. In me absence of scheme, it is futile to remit the matters to the Review Committee. He also pointed out that the Advisory Review Committee, having disappointed earlier on more than one occasion, nothing new and favourable is expected from the Review Committee and more particularly when there are no guidelines. There is substance in what is being urged by the learned counsel. He also pointed out that the Advisory Review Committee, having disappointed earlier on more than one occasion, nothing new and favourable is expected from the Review Committee and more particularly when there are no guidelines. There is substance in what is being urged by the learned counsel. We are convinced that the prisoners are liable to be prematurely released for their good conduct on the basis o the reformative tendencies already shown but we refrain from exercising those powers in this petition and that is on the principle that the power of sentencing is of the Court and the question of execution of the sentence and release is that of the executive. We think it proper that a direction be made to the State Government. We, therefore, recommend the release of the prisoners in question. A copy of the judgment be sent to the Secretary to the Chief Minister who shall pass appropriate orders for their release as early as possible. 27. Before we part, we again remind and direct the State Government that the Rules of 1969 having become archaic be revised and new guidelines be framed fixing periods for premature release depending upon the gravity and manner of committing crimes. For example, in Maharashtra, the State Government has formed categories depending upon the intention of killing, brutality of the offence, murders committed for prize and reward etc. laying down at what stages after completion of 14 years of imprisonment, a prisoner can be prematurely released from the sentence of life imprisonment. Such guidelines are necessary to make the task of the Review Committee easier on one side and give less scope for injustice on one side and give less scope for injustice and arbitrariness. A compliance report be forwarded to this Court within a period of six (6) months. Rule made absolute as indicated. Ordered accordingly. State Government is directed to consider that Rules of 1969 be revised and new guidelines be framed fixing periods for premature release. 1. A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 2147. 2. A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 898.