Judgment K. J. ROHEE, J.:- Heard. Rule, Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner was arrested on 8-2-1997 in connection with an offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC. Since then he continued to be under trial. He was convicted for the said offence by judgment dated 20-8-1999 and is a life convict. 3. By communication dated 6-8-1997 the Desk Officer, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra informed the Inspector General of Prisons, Pune under the orders of the Governor of Maharashtra that State remission is to be given to the convicts on the eve of Golden Jubilee of Indian Independence with effect from 15-8-1997. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that benefit of the said State remission is not extended to him though he is entitled for it. It was urged on behalf of the respondent/State that State remission can be extended only to those persons who were convicts on 15-8-1997 and it cannot be extended to those who were not convicts on that date. Since the petitioner was not a convict on 15-8-1997 and was merely an under trial, he is not entitled to get benefit of the State remission. The logic, according to the learned APP is that had the petitioner been acquitted, there was no question of giving him benefit of the State remission. 5. The logic in the submissions of learned APP is difficult to accept. The fortuitous circumstance of one Court deciding a comparatively new matter before 15-8-1997 and the another Court deciding a very old matter thereafter cannot be permitted to be utilized to distinguish between convicts/prisoners for the purposes of extension of said benefit. Section 432 of Cr.P.C. empowers the State Government to pass appropriate orders and to remit sentences. In view of Golden Jubilee of Indian Independence, the decision dated 6-8-1997 has been taken. The decision is made operative from 15-8-1997. Thus the above referred fortuitous circumstance is totally irrelevant and if any classification is permitted on the basis of such circumstance, it would be wholly arbitrary. For an under trial prisoner languishing in jail, after he is found guilty and is sentenced, section 428 of Cr.P.C. permits set off of the period spent by him as under trial prisoner against the period of sentence ultimately imposed. For an under trial prisoner languishing in jail, after he is found guilty and is sentenced, section 428 of Cr.P.C. permits set off of the period spent by him as under trial prisoner against the period of sentence ultimately imposed. Thus for all practical purposes after he is found guilty and sentenced, he becomes convict and as such is covered by the policy decision dated 6-8-1997 mentioned above. The effort to contend that the period spent in jail as under trial prisoner is wholly irrelevant for the purposes of the said circular, is without any basis and in fact it violates the spirit of said decision. An under trial prisoner who is ultimately acquitted is not a convict at all and hence he is not entitled to benefit of remission. 6. We, therefore, hold that the present petitioner is entitled to benefit of the said State remission and accordingly direct respondent/State Government to extend its benefit to him. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. 7. The fees of Mr. N. S. Bhat, Advocate appointed for the petitioner is quantified at Rs.750/-. Petition allowed.