S.R. Das Gupta, C.J.- The petitioner before us was on 20th day of May, 1947, convicted for offences under sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum and sentenced to transportation for life. On the same day he was taken to jail. Since then the petitioner is undergoing the said sentence. The petitioner in this petition is praying for the issue of a suitable writ directing the respondents, the State of Mysore and the Superintendent, Central Prison, Hindalga, Belgaum, to produce the petitioner before this Court and to set him at liberty. The petitioner’s case in short is that he has already undergone the period of his imprisonment. The facts on which the petitioner has based his said case are as follows: According to the Jail Rules framed by the Bombay Government by virtue of the powers conferred for that purpose by section 59 of the Prisons Act, being the Rules contained in Bombay Jail Manual, a sentence for transportation for life shall ordinarily be taken as 15 years’ actual imprisonment. The said Rules also provide for grant of certain remissions to prisoners. The petitioner was also given State remissions by the Government when India became independent and on the occasion when India attained the status of Republic. The remissions granted on these occasions were 12 months and 2 years 6 months respectively. The petitioner also obtained remission of one month from the Bombay State Government on 15th August, 1948. On 2nd November, 1956, on account of formation of New Mysore State, the petitioner got a further remission of 9 months of his sentence. Thereafter on 15th August, 1957, the petitioner got further State remission of six months on account of 10 years celebration of Independence of India. These State remissions were granted under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The total remission which the petitioner obtained, including the ordinary remissions provided for in the Jail Rules and the State remissions granted under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure amounts to 102 months, i.e., 8 years, 5 months and 27 days. The petitioner has undergone actual imprisonment for a period of 11 years, 6 months and 9 days. Thus the total period of imprisonment served by the petitioners adding the said period of remissions is 20 years, 1 month and 12 days. The petitioner has undergone actual imprisonment for a period of 11 years, 6 months and 9 days. Thus the total period of imprisonment served by the petitioners adding the said period of remissions is 20 years, 1 month and 12 days. The petitioner’s case, therefore, is that his term of imprisonment has been completed and he is entitled to be released. In order to understand more fully the contentions of the petitioners before us, it would be necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and of the Bombay Jail Manual. They are as follows: Section 55 of the Indian Penal Code provides that in every case in which sentence of imprisonment for life had been passed, the appropriate Government may, without the consent of the offender, commute the punishment for imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding fourteen years. I should at this stage mention that under the amended section 53-A of the Indian Penal Code reference to transportation for life shall be construed as reference to imprisonment for life. Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code inter alia provides that when any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the appropriate Government may at any time without conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend, the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced. Section 402 of the Criminal Procedure Code inter alia provides that the appropriate Government may, without the consent of the persons sentenced, commute sentence for imprisonment for life to rigorous imprisonment for a term not exceeding that to which he might have been sentenced. I have already mentioned that by virtue of the powers conferred by section 59(5) of the Prisons Act upon the State Government to make Rules consistent with the said Act for the award of marks and the shortening of sentences, the State of Bombay framed Jail Rules contained in Bombay Jail Manual. Clause (c) of Rule 1419 of the said Rules provides as follows: “A sentence of transportation for life shall ordinarily be taken as 15 years’ actual imprisonment”. Rule 1420 mentions the ordinary, good conduct and other special remissions to be given to prisoners. Clause (c) of Rule 1419 of the said Rules provides as follows: “A sentence of transportation for life shall ordinarily be taken as 15 years’ actual imprisonment”. Rule 1420 mentions the ordinary, good conduct and other special remissions to be given to prisoners. Rule 1439 provides that the total ordinary and special remission awarded to a prisoner under the said Rules shall not without the special sanction of the State Government exceed one third of his sentence. The petitioners’ case is, as I have already mentioned, that taking into consideration all these remissions allowable under the Jail Rules and those awarded by the Government under section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the total period of imprisonment undergone by him would be 20 years, 1 month and 12 days. It should be mentioned that it is not disputed before us that the period of remissions allowable under the Jail Rules and the periods of remissions awarded by the Government under section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code taken along with the period of imprisonment actually undergone would amount to 20 years, 1 month and 12 days. It is also not disputed before us that the actual period of imprisonment undergone by the petitioner is 11 years, 6 months and 9 days and the total period of State remissions granted to the petitioner amounts to 4 years, 10 months. The contention of the State, on which this application was resisted, in the first place was that the petitioner is not entitled as a matter of right to the remissions allowable under the Jail Rules; such remissions being at the discretion of the authorities concerned. Neither the Bombay Government nor the Mysore Government has allowed such remissions. The said State Governments have ordered that the petitioner should be released on the completion of 15 years actual imprisonment and the Government should be approached in good time for issue of orders under section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The next contention of the State was that under the Indian Penal Code imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for 20 years. If therefore, it was contended, the remissions allowable under the Jail Rules are not allowed to the petitioner and the period of imprisonment to be suffered by the petitioner is 20 years, then the petitioner is not yet entitled to his release. If therefore, it was contended, the remissions allowable under the Jail Rules are not allowed to the petitioner and the period of imprisonment to be suffered by the petitioner is 20 years, then the petitioner is not yet entitled to his release. It was contended that the petitioner, even taking into consideration the periods of State remissions awarded to him, has undergone imprisonment for the period of 16 years, 4 months and 9 days, which falls short of the period of 20 years which is to be undergone by him. In support of his first contention the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State relied on the provisions of clause (2) of Rule 1447 of the said Rules which reads as follows: “Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 1419 no prisoner who has been sentenced to transportation for life or more than .4 years imprisonment or to transportation and imprisonment or to Transportation and imprisonment for terms exceeding in the aggregate 14 years shall be released on completion of his term of transportation or imprisonment or both as the case may be including all remissions unless a report with respect to such prisoner has been made under sub-rule (1) and orders of Government has been received thereon with regard to the date of his final release”. The learned Government Pleader contended before us that this provision shows that remission allowable under the Jail Rules cannot be claimed as a matter of right and in spite of the fact that the period of imprisonment of a prisoner, who has been sentenced to transportation for life, including such remissions allowable under the Rules have been completed, he may be still detained by the Government if the Government consider that the prisoner should not be released at this stage. In this case both the State Government of Bombay and the State of Government of Mysore have come to the conclusion that the petitioner should not be released at this stage. In this case both the State Government of Bombay and the State of Government of Mysore have come to the conclusion that the petitioner should not be released at this stage. In support of the other contention, viz., that the life imprisonment is equivalent to imprisonment for 20 years, the learned Government Pleader relies on section 57 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as follows: “In calculating fractions of terms of punishment, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for 20 years.” As for clause (c) of Rule 1419 of the Bombay Jail Rules which provides that a sentence of transportation for life shall "ordinarily" be taken as "15 years’ actual imprisonment, the contention of the learned Government Pleader was that all that the said Rule mentions is that ‘ordinarily’ a sentence of transportation shall be taken as 15 years of imprisonment. But he contended such period cannot be said to be inflexible. He further urged that clause (c) of Rule 1419 was subject to the provisions of sub-rule (ii) of rule 1447. In other words, his contention was that although ordinarily a sentence for transportation for life shall be taken as 15 years’ imprisonment the Government may notwithstanding that the said term of imprisonment has been completed detain him in prison for a period not exceeding the total period of 20 years. These being the contentions of the parties before us, the first and the primary question which we shall have to decide is what is the total period of imprisonment which a person sentenced to transportation for life has to undergo. Is it 20 years as contended by the learned Government Pleader for the State, or is it 15 years actual imprisonment, as contended by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner ? It is clear that if the said period of imprisonment is 20 years, then the petitioner has not yet earned his release, because in that case the total period of imprisonment undergone by the petitioner taken along with the period of State remissions allowed to him would be 15 years, 4 months and 9 days which period falls short of the period of 20 years which has to be undergone by him. In my opinion, the contention of the Government Pleader, viz., that under sub-rule (2) of Rule 1447 of the Bombay Jail Rules the Government is entitled to disallow the remissions mentioned in the said Jail Rules, should be accepted as sound. The sub-rule (2) of Rule 1447 leaves no room for doubt in this respect. It clearly provides that no person who has been sentenced to transportation for life shall be released on completion of his term of imprisonment including all remissions, which means the remissions allowable under the Jail Rules, unless a report has been made under sub-rule (1) of the said Rules and Orders have been passed thereon. The said sub-rules read with other Rules of the Jail Manual to which the learned Government Pleader referred established his contention on this point. The question which still remains to be decided, in order to decide this petition, is what is the period of imprisonment which a prisoner sentenced to transportation for life has to undergo -is it 20 years or is it 15 years actual imprisonment. The learned Government Pleader in support of his contention that it is 20 years of imprisonment which a person sentenced to transportation for life (now equivalent to life imprisonment) has to undergo, relied on section 57 of the Indian Penal Code which as I have mentioned, lays down that in calculating fractions of terms of punishment, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years. He also relied on a decision of the Privy Council reported in Kishori Lal v. Emperor’1. What section 57 of the Indian Penal Code provides is that in calculating fractions of terms of punishment, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for 20 years. It does not merely state that imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as imprisonment for 20 years. What it says is that it is for the purpose of calculating fractions of terms of punishment that such reckoning will have to be made. Instances of cases where the fractions of terms of punishment have to be calculated are to be found in section 116 and section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. What it says is that it is for the purpose of calculating fractions of terms of punishment that such reckoning will have to be made. Instances of cases where the fractions of terms of punishment have to be calculated are to be found in section 116 and section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 116 provides that whoever abets an offence punishable with imprisonment shall, if that offence be not committed, in consequence of the abetment, and no express provisions is made by this code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for that offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term provided for that offence. Thus under section 116 of the Indian Penal Code one-fourth fraction of the longest term provided for an offence which has been abetted has to be calculated. No difficulty arises in making the said calculation in any other case except in the case where imprisonment for life has been awarded. It is in that context that section 57 has to be considered. It is in such cases, where one-fourth fraction of imprisonment for life has to be calculated, which it is not possible to do, that imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for 20 years. Similarly in section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, it is provided that whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case nay be, one half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence or with such fine as is provided for the offence or with both. Difficulty arises when one has to determine one-half of imprisonment for life. It is not possible to do so and it is for that reason again that section 57 has to be called in aid. It is in these contexts that the said section 57 has to be read. Difficulty arises when one has to determine one-half of imprisonment for life. It is not possible to do so and it is for that reason again that section 57 has to be called in aid. It is in these contexts that the said section 57 has to be read. The said section does not provide that imprisonment for life simpliciter shall be equivalent to imprisonment for 20 years. In my opinion, this contention of the learned Government Pleader based on section 57 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be accepted as sound. Coming to the decision of the Privy Council on which the learned Government Pleader relied, it appears that the said decision dealt with a different question. On the other hand, even if there was any pronouncement by their Lordships on the question, which we are now dealing with, in the said case, the said pronouncement was entirely in favour of the view which I am taking in this case. The following observations of their Lordships will make this point clear. “The only sentence known to the law which can exceed 14 years is one of transportation for life, and, with two exceptions Where transportation is a part of the sentence, the term is always for the Convicts serving this sentence may be granted remission for good conduct, and for the purpose of calculating remission in the case of life sentence, it appears that in India they are treated as sentences of 20 years. This is no doubt the reason why section 57 of the Code provides that for calculating a fractional part of a life sentence it should be treated as one of 20 years.” In making these observations their Lordships were explaining the effect of section 57 of the Indian Penal Code and that effect is, what I have already indicated in this judgment. Their Lordships also made it clear that for purposes of calculating remissions in the case of life sentence that such sentences are treated as sentence of 20 years and it is for that reason that section 57 of the Indian Penal Code has been enacted. In my opinion, this case far from supporting the contention of the learned Government Pleader as to the effect of section 57, negatives it. In my opinion, this case far from supporting the contention of the learned Government Pleader as to the effect of section 57, negatives it. What then is the provision, if any, which determines the number of years which a person sentenced to life imprisonment has to undergo, or shortens or permits shortening of life imprisonment. If there is no such provision then a life imprisonment must mean what it says, i.e., imprisonment for life. It, however, appears to us that the Prisons Act and the Rules made thereunder make such provision. Section 59 of the Prisons Act empowers the State Government to make Rules consistent with this Act amongst others for the award of marks and the shortening of sentences. The Bombay Jail Rules, in providing that a sentence of transportation for life shall ordinarily be taken as “15 years actual imprisonment”, and in granting ordinary and special remission to prisoners, must have been framed under the powers conferred by section 59 of the Prisons Act. There is no other Act under which the said Rules could have been framed. In fact it was not contended before us that the Rules provided in the Bombay Jail Manual are ultra vires the powers of the State Government. That being so, we must assume that the said Rules are valid Rules made validly under powers conferred upon the State Government. Such a power, as already mentioned, is to be found in section 59 of the Prisons Act. It is, therefore, clear that a sentence for transportation for life in a case where these Rules apply shall be taken as 15 years actual imprisonment. The learned Government Pleader contended before us that what the said rule (rule 1419 (c)) provides is that a sentence of transportation for life shall ordinarily be taken as. 15 years actual imprisonment. He laid stress upon the word ‘ordinarily’ and contended that although ordinarily the sentence of transportation for life should be 15 years, the authorities had the discretion to extend the same up to a period of 20 years. I am, unable to accept this contention of the learned Government Pleader. The word ‘ordinarily’ used in the said clause has reference to the words ‘actual imprisonment’ used therein. I am, unable to accept this contention of the learned Government Pleader. The word ‘ordinarily’ used in the said clause has reference to the words ‘actual imprisonment’ used therein. In my opinion, the effect of the said clause is that ordinarily it should be 15 years actual imprisonment, but as provided in the very next rule (rule 1420) remissions should be granted in the manner indicated in the said rule. Reading both the rules, i.e., rules 1419(c) and 1420 together it becomes quite clear that what was provided was that although ordinarily a sentence of transportation for life shall be taken as 15 years actual imprisonment, certain remissions should be granted as mentioned in rule 1420, those remissions being subject to the discretion of the Government concerned. This is the effect of the use of the word ‘ordinarily ‘in the said clause. The said word does not imply that although a sentence of transportation for life shall be taken as 15 years actual imprisonment the Government may detain a person for 20 years. In my opinion, the effect of the said clause is that the maximum period which a person sentenced to transportation for life shall have to undergo is 15 years actual imprisonment. If the Government permits remissions at its discretion allowable under the Jail Rules then the said period of 15 years will be reduced by the period for which such remission has been so granted. If again the State remissions under section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code have been given to a convict then the period of 15 years will stand reduced by the said period of State remissions. I have already mentioned that it has been conceded before us by the learned Government Pleader that in no case State remissions can be forfeited. This is also what rule 1442 of the Jail Rules provides. State remissions, if awarded, must be deducted from the period of sentence and the Government has no discretion in the matter. Rule 1447(2) in my opinion, also supports this view. It only provides that no person who has been sentenced to transportation for life shall be released on completion of his term of transportation including all remissions unless the Government chooses to release him. Rule 1447(2) in my opinion, also supports this view. It only provides that no person who has been sentenced to transportation for life shall be released on completion of his term of transportation including all remissions unless the Government chooses to release him. Thus the completion of the term which is referred to in the said Rule is the completion of term of imprisonment “including the remissions” allowable under the Jail Rules. That is to say, in a case where after taking into consideration the period of remissions allowable under the Jail Rules it is found that the term of transportation for life has been completed which under rule 1419(c) is 15 years, the Government is still entitled to detain him. It is only in such cases that is, where after taking into consideration the period of remissions allowable under the Jail Rules it is found that the period of transportation has been completed that the Government is empowered to refuse to release the convict. The said Rules nowhere state that although 15 years of actual imprisonment has expired the person sentenced to transportation for life can still be detained by the Government. Rule 1447(2) is no authority for that proposition. On the other hand the implication of this rule is quite clear, viz., that in the case not falling within that rule, e.g., where the full 15 years actual imprisonment has been served the Government will have no power to detain the convict. In this connection I should mention that that in rule 1419 it is provided that “in the following rules” the sentence of transportation for life shall ordinarily be taken as 15 years actual imprisonment. Rule 1447 is one of the rules which follows rule 1419. So, when it is said in rule 1447(2) that on completion of the term of transportation, it must mean on completion of 15 years actual imprisonment. The said rule, however, as I have mentioned does not merely say that on completion of the term of imprisonment the Government would be entitled to release the convict. What it mentions is that the term of imprisonment including all remissions, which means that in a case after taking into consideration the period of remission allowable under the Jail Rules, the period of 15 years actual imprisonment is found to be complete that the Government has power to still detain the convict. What it mentions is that the term of imprisonment including all remissions, which means that in a case after taking into consideration the period of remission allowable under the Jail Rules, the period of 15 years actual imprisonment is found to be complete that the Government has power to still detain the convict. But in my opinion, the Government has no power to detain the convict sentenced to transportation for life after he has served full 15 years actual imprisonment. The Government also has no power of detention in a case where 15 years actual imprisonment served by a prisoner sentenced to transportation for life includes the period of State remissions granted under section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is not disputed that in this case the period of actual imprisonment suffered by the petitioner taken along with the period of State remissions granted under section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code exceeds 15 years, as I have already mentioned and the fact is not disputed that the period of imprisonment suffered by the prisoner taken along with the State remissions granted to him is 16 years, 4 months and 9 days. The petitioner, therefore, is entitled to be released forthwith and we make an order accordingly. A writ, therefore, be issued directing the respondents to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith. The petitioner is entitled to costs of this petition. Advocate’s fee is certified at Rs. 100. A. Narayana Pai, J., I agree. S.V.S. ----- Petition allowed.