Honble SAXENA, J. – Petitioner Shrilal was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, in Sessions Case No. 158/74 u/s. 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month. His appeal was rejected by this Court. The Apex Court also dismissed his Special Leave Petition. (2). Petitioner has alleged that he was arrested on 2.10.74 and as per details given in para 4 of the petition, as on 31.7.96, he has already suffered sentence for a period of 14 years 15 months and 43 days including the period of his detention during trial and the remission earned by him. He has, therefore, alleged that he has become eligible for consideration of his release under the provisions of Rajasthan Prisoners (Shortening of Sentence) Rules, 1958 (briefly the Rules 1958) but his case has not been put up before the Advisory Board. He has, therefore, prayed that the respondents be directed to put up his case before the Advisory Board for his premature release. (3). The respondents in their reply have asserted that the petitioner was convicted on 6.2.1976, that as per Rule 8 (iii) of the Rules 1958 (amended Rules of 1990), for a life convict under trial period is not countable for calculating his eligi- bility for consideration of his premature release. It has been pointed out that as on 30.4.1947, the petitioner has undergone actual sentence for a period of 9 years 11 months and 15 days only and has earned a remission for a period of 3 years 8 months and 23 days. Thus, including the remission period, he has suffered sentence for a period of 12 years 10 months and 8 days. It has also been submitted that the case of the petitioner for premature release will be put up before the Advisory Board as soon as the Jail Authorities, Gwalior (MP) intimate that the petitioner has undergone the required minimum sentence for a period of 13 years and 8 months including the remission earned by him. (4). Heard and perused the relevant record. There is no dispute that the peti- tioner was convicted on 6.2.76. (4). Heard and perused the relevant record. There is no dispute that the peti- tioner was convicted on 6.2.76. As per amended Rule 8 (iii) of the Rules 1958, a life convict, who has been sentenced before the year 1978 shall be eligible for consideration for premature release after completion of two third (2/3rd) or 13 years and 8 months of his sentence including the remission, which even is less and that the period of detention during trial is not included for computing the said period. (5). The petitioner as on 30.8.97 has undergone sentence for a period of 13 years two months and 8 days only. Thus, he has not suffered the required minimum sentence of 13 years and 8 months till this day. Therefore, at present he is not eligible for consideration for premature release. (6). In such circumstances, petitioners detention can not be termed as illegal or unlawful and as such, this Habeas Corpus writ petition does not survive, which is hereby dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to put up petitioners case before the Advisory Board as soon as he becomes eligible for consideration for premature release in terms of amended Rule 8 (iii) of the Rules, 1958. (7). A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent Central Jail, Jaipur and Home Commissioner, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur for necessary action.