JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner by this miscellaneous petition has prayed that if the period of remission is taken into .consideration then he has already undergone the sentence awarded to him and he should be released from the jail as the persons who were convicted and sentenced alongwith him have already been released from the jail. 2. The appellant-petitioner was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur (in Sessions Case No. 10/1977) the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. for committing the murder of his wife and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 5.8.77. He preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 370 of 1977 before the High Court which was dismissed vide judgment dated 5.8.87. Aggrieved with the judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, the petitioner preferred S.L.R before Hon'ble the Supreme Court but that was, also, dismissed. 3. After rejection of his appeal by the High Court and dismissal of the S.L.R by the Supreme Court, the petitioner requested for his transfer to Central Jail, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as he is a resident of the State of Gujarat. On his request he was transferred from the Central Jail, Udaipur to the Central Jail, Ahmedabad on 5.11.90 where he is serving out the sentence. 4. As per the calculation made by the petitioner in his application, he has already undergone 13 years and four months sentence including the remission granted to him and the under-trial period. 5. The power to grant remission lay with the State and it is for the State to consider how much remission has to be granted to him and he can be released from the jail after serving out the sentence. It has been held by the Supreme Court in : State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan Singh ( AIR 1996 SC 2106 ) that "the power to grant the remission lay with the State. If the power was improperly exercised, the High Court could quash the exercise. The High Court could not, in effect, grant a general remission where the State had intended it to be restricted.'' 6. Since the power to grant remission lay with the State, the petitioner should, therefore, move the Government of Rajasthan for the grant of remission and for his release. He can move an application through the jail authorities. The High Court could not, in effect, grant a general remission where the State had intended it to be restricted.'' 6. Since the power to grant remission lay with the State, the petitioner should, therefore, move the Government of Rajasthan for the grant of remission and for his release. He can move an application through the jail authorities. If any such application is moved by the petitioner then the State Government or the authority appointed under the Rules will be under an obligation to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for the grant of remission and his release in accordance with the law. Even if no such application is made, the respondents are obliged to consider his case for the grant of remission and for his release in accordance with law at an early date. 7. With these observations, the application filed by the petitioner for the grant of remission and for his pre-mature release is disposed of.> Petition disposed as above. *******