M. SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THOUGH it has been registered as an Appeal, it starts with a representation sent by a convict from the jail for remission of his sentence. ( 2 ) WHILE admitting the appeal we called for a detail statement relating to the period of detention and other particulars of the convict. The Superintendent of Police (Jail) has sent the report. On the earlier date this Court appointed Shri G. P. Roy, a Senior Advocate of this Court to assist the Court as amicus curiae. Shri Roy agreed to present the appeal. ( 3 ) FROM the statement sent by the jail authorities we find that the accused was convicted on 13-10-93 for offences under Section 302/326, I. P. C. The case was, however, initiated in 1988. The quantum of sentence is imprisonment for fourteen years. The accused (now convict) was first sent to the jail on 27-9-88 as an under trial prisoner. He was in jail for five years, one month and three days. After sentence he is in same custody for a continuous period of two years, seven months and ten days as on 10-6-96. In the meantime the convict earned a remission for two months. To sum up the statement regarding confinement of the accused, pre and post-trial, it would appear that he is in custody continuously from 27-9-88. ( 4 ) THE main prayer in the petition is for remission. It is admitted position that the case was under old Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 and therefore, the investigation, trial etc. continued under the old procedure as per provision of Section 484 (2) (a), Cr. P. C. 1973. It may incidentally be noted that the new Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 was extended to and came into operation within the State of Sikkim only on 13th September, 1994. ( 5 ) A question has arisen whether the provision for remission under Section 432, 433 and 433a of the new Act would be operative in this case or whether it would be governed under Section 402, 402a of the old Act. The basic provisions in the old Act and the new Act in this respect are almost the same. Section 433a of the new Act, however, introduces a new provision of compulsory detention for atleast fourteen years in cases of sentence of imprisonment for life. The basic provisions in the old Act and the new Act in this respect are almost the same. Section 433a of the new Act, however, introduces a new provision of compulsory detention for atleast fourteen years in cases of sentence of imprisonment for life. In any way, the law as indicated under Section 484 Cr. P. C. (new) is that all appeal, application, trial, enquiry or investigation pending before the date on which the new Code came into force would be continued to be in accordance with the provision of the old code. However, question of remission does not fall within any of the five items noted above. Therefore, the cases where detention have been finalised under the old procedure, there would be no bar for application of the provisions of the new Act relating to remission in such cases. ( 6 ) FOR the purpose of remission of any sentence, 'the appropriate Government' is the actual authority. Section 432 (7) defines appropriate authority and in any case it is the State Government of Sikkim. Court has little to do in the matter of granting remission. There is some role prescribed for the trial Judge to play as provided under Section 432 (2) Cr. P. C. Therefore, the convict should approach the State Government, obviously through the Superintendent of Police (Jail) where he has been put up, for consideration of his prayer for remission. ( 7 ) LEARNED Advocate general pointed out that the quantum of sentence itself is confusing and illegal. We do not know of any provision under which imprisonment for fourteen years can be imposed, except the punishment for offence under Section 222 I. P. C. Learned Standing Counsel, however, stated that since the time of the Ruler there was some provision under which sentence for fourteen years imprisonment could have been granted in lieu of life imprisonment. We live to learn. But still our confusion in this respect remains. This is not the subject matter in issue. However, we would wish the trial Courts dealing with such matters should be cent-per-cent sure about the actual provision of law when assessing the quantum of punishment of imprisonment. Learned Advocate General also stated that since the offence was of grave nature, remission should not be liberally granted. He referred to Maru Ram's Case reported in AIR 1980 SC 2147. However, we would wish the trial Courts dealing with such matters should be cent-per-cent sure about the actual provision of law when assessing the quantum of punishment of imprisonment. Learned Advocate General also stated that since the offence was of grave nature, remission should not be liberally granted. He referred to Maru Ram's Case reported in AIR 1980 SC 2147. The decision does not come to any assistance as it concerns Section 433a of the new Cr. P. C. which relates to the cases where the sentence are of imprisonment for life. ( 8 ) SHRI Roy, learned Advocate an amicus curiae submitted that question of remission of sentence might be dealt with by the State Government if any when sought for by the convict. But the convict should not be deprived of the provision of set off as contemplated under Section 428 of the new Cr. P. C. Again the question arises whether the benefit of Section 428 Cr. P. C. (new) can be extended to the cases which were dealt with under the provisions of old Cr. P. C. In fact, non of the Sections including Section 428 Cr. P. C. (new) has been given retrospective effect. But there are numbers of decisions confirming applicability of the provision of 428 Cr. P. C. (new) in the cases tried under the old Act. Shri Roy referred to two decisions typically to the point. One is Boucher Pierre Andre's Case reported in (1975) 1 SCC 192 : (1975 Cri LJ 182) and Suraj Bhan's cases reported in AIR 1976 SC 648 : (1976 Cri LJ 577 ). The principle enunciated is that though under Section 428 Cr. P. C. (new) the conviction and sentence cannot be challenged, the Section confers a benefit on a convict reducing his liability to undergo imprisonment out of the sentence imposed for the period which he had already suffered as undertrial prisoner. Such a benefit should not be confined to the cases where the trial was taken and the sentence was imposed under the old procedural law. Shri Roy, therefore, contends that atleast the provision of set off should be made applicable in this case and the period for which the convict was in custody as undertrial prisoner should be set off against the period of his sentence. The argument is sound and is accepted. Shri Roy, therefore, contends that atleast the provision of set off should be made applicable in this case and the period for which the convict was in custody as undertrial prisoner should be set off against the period of his sentence. The argument is sound and is accepted. It is, hence, ORDERED that the appeal be and the same is disposed of with the observation that the prayer for remission of sentence cannot be entertained by this Court as it is not within the competence of the Court the convict should get set off for the period of five years, one month and eight days against the sentence imposed on him on trial. This period of remission as noted above would be in addition to the period of remission which the convict might earn from time to time. A copy of this judgment be sent to the convict through the Superintendent of Police (Jail ). The Court puts on record its appreciation and gratitude to the service rendered by Shri G. P. Roy, Advocate in the instant case as amicus curiae. A copy of this judgment be also supplied to Shri Roy free of charges. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .