( 1 ) LEAVE granted. ( 2 ) ON the occasion of the Golden Jubilee celebrations of Indias Independence the government of Andhra Pradesh have decided to grant remission of sentence to certain categories of prisoners who were convicted of offences and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. Presumably on the advice of council of ministers the governor of Andhra pradesh in exercise of his powers under article 161 of the Constitution of India was pleased to remit the unexpired residue of the sentences of the following class of convicted persons: (a) All the convicted prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life and governed by section 433-A Criminal Procedure Code. and who have undergone an actual sentence of 7 years and total sentence of 10 years as on 15- 08-1997, and (b) All convicted prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life and governed by section 433-A Criminal Procedure Code. aged more than 65 years and have undergone an actual sentence of 5 years and total sentence of 7 years as on 15/08/1997. ( 3 ) APPELLANT in this case was convicted of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. On 15/08/1997 appellant has completed a little over of 6 years of actual imprisonment. But claiming that a total sentence of 10 years had been completed by him on the said date when remissions were also added thereto, he pleaded for being included in the list of persons to be released. When that was not granted he approached the High court of Andhra Pradesh. A division bench of the High court has disposed of his writ petition permitting the appellant to make a representation to government for counting the maximum period of sentence served with remissions by deleting that portion of the G. O. which requires completion of a minimum period of 7 years. But the appellant is not satisfied with the said relief and therefore he has filed this appeal. ( 4 ) SHRI. But the appellant is not satisfied with the said relief and therefore he has filed this appeal. ( 4 ) SHRI. P. P. Rao, learned senior counsel arguing for the appellant interpreted the first limb of the G. O. extracted above in the following manner: the words "actual sentence of 7 years" should not be clubbed with the following words "total sentence of 10 years" because the first one should have been of a particular category of prisoners and without remissions they would have been in jail for a period of 7 years. ( 5 ) IN other words, the endeavour of the learned senior counsel is to interpret that limb disjunctively. ( 6 ) OBVIOUSLY, the monosyllable "and" employed in the G. O. is a conjunctive word and if that is required to be interpreted disjunctively the said interpretation should have gathered support from the other portions of the G. O. itself. It is after all a G. O. issued by the government following a decision made by the governor in exercise of his constitutional power under Article 161, and therefore, the intention can be gathered from the authority which issued the G. O. government had filed a counter-affidavit before the High court explaining the position in which it was stated that "it was the policy of the government to release on the occasion of the Golden Jubilee Celebrations of Indian independence, only those life convicts who have fulfilled both the conditions mentioned in the G. O. with regard to the period of actual sentence as well as total sentence including the remissions". ( 7 ) WHEN the government stated so in the counter-affidavit that the G. O. reflected such a policy it is not proper for this court to place a different interpretation, even assuming that there was some ambiguity in the first limb of the above quoted G. O. It is difficult to countenance that the government would have created two different categories belonging to the same class of prisoners (leaving apart the category created on the basis of old age ). The reasonable interpretation to be placed on the G. O. is that the prisoners who have acquired both conditions together i. e. he should have undergone an actual sentence of 7 years and completed a total period of 10 years including remission, are entitled to the benefit thereof. The reasonable interpretation to be placed on the G. O. is that the prisoners who have acquired both conditions together i. e. he should have undergone an actual sentence of 7 years and completed a total period of 10 years including remission, are entitled to the benefit thereof. ( 8 ) IN this context it is pertinent to point out that no prisoner was released by the government so far who have not fulfilled both the conditions mentioned in the g. O. , a fact which has been stated by the government in the counter-affidavit filed before this court. ( 9 ) IN the light of Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure which mandates that an actual period of 14 years in the prison is the minimum period for considering pre-mature release of a life convict (except where the Constitutional power is exercised) it is difficult for us to place a different interpretation on the said G. O. Accordingly we dismiss this appeal.