Judgment : M.T. JOSHI, J. :- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking re-consideration of the direction to the respondent/State Government for his premature release by giving remission, etc. 3. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli on 26.7.1996 in Sessions Case No. 9/1996, for the offences punishable under section 302, 376 and 201 of the I.P. Code. He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for committing the offence of murder of the deceased. The State Government, vide order dated 20th April, 2010, in view of the Guidelines dated 11th May, 1992, remitted that portion of the sentence of imprisonment for life, which is in excess of 28 years of total imprisonment, including remissions, subject to the completion of actual imprisonment of 14 years and also subject to the good behaviour. The petitioner thereafter filed applications on 23rd May, 2011 and 6th February, 2012 for re-consideration of the order. His contention, in short, is that Guidelines of the year 1978 and not the Guidelines of the year 1992 should be made applicable, which provide for 26 years of imprisot1ment with set-off and remissions, instead of 28 years' imprisonment, as has been directed vide order dated 20th April, 2010. The said applications were not considered and hence, the present writ petition. 4. Mr. P.S. Dighe, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that while the policy of the State Government dated 16.11.1978 provides for grant of remission vide Category No.1 (e) for a period of total imprisonment of 24 years, including remission, the Guidelines of the year 1992 provide for total imprisonment of 28 years, including remission, etc. As per Clause(1)(e) of the new Guidelines, however, not only the new Guidelines provide that the earlier Guidelines of the year 1978 would continue to apply to the cases of the convicts not covered by Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure except those which are specifically included in the revised guidelines, namely, the convicts covered under Category No.8, but since the earlier Guidelines were issued under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, the next of the Guidelines issued under the statutory provisions of section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot supersede the same. - In the circumstances, relying on the ratio laid down in the case of "State of Haryana and others v. Jagdish", decided by the Supreme Court of India on 22nd March, 2010 : [2010 ALL SCR 943], he submitted that the present petition be allowed. 5. The learned A.P.P., on the other hand, however, opposed the application. He submitted that the Guidelines of 1992 are specific, except Category No.8 of the earlier directions. He points out that this Category No. 8 is applicable to the person guilty of offence not involving murder and, therefore, Category No.8 would not be applicable in the present case. 6. As regards the existence of entire Guidelines of the year 1978, on the premise that those Guidelines are issued under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and the next of the Guidelines are issued on the basis of statutory provisions of Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, learned A.P.P. submitted that the earlier Guidelines do not show that those were issued under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. In the year 1978 also, the provisions of remission were in existence like the provisions of Section 432, 433, etc. of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The only change that is brought on the statute-book in the year 1978 is by way of addition of the provision of section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This new provision provides that where the sentence of imprisonment for life was imposed or where the sentence of death is converted to the imprisonment for life, the person would not be released from prison unless he had served atleast 14 years of imprisonment. In view of these facts, he submits that there is no merit in the present writ petition and it be dismissed. 7. In the case of "State of Haryana and others v. Jagdish", [2010 ALL SCR 943] (cited supra), the observations would show that the State of Haryana had earlier issued Guidelines for remission under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. In those circumstances, next of the policy decision of the year 2008, in exercise of the powers under Section 432, etc. of the Code of Criminal Procedure was held to be subordinate to the Guidelines under the powers exercised under the Constitution. In those circumstances, next of the policy decision of the year 2008, in exercise of the powers under Section 432, etc. of the Code of Criminal Procedure was held to be subordinate to the Guidelines under the powers exercised under the Constitution. In the present case, however, the Guidelines dated 16.11.1978, placed for perusal before this Court, would show that those were not issued under the powers conferred vide Article 161 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the ratio in the case of "State of Haryana and others v. Jagdish", [2010 ALL SCR 943] (cited supra) would not be applicable in the present case. 8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was convicted on 26.7.1996 and, therefore, in his case, the fresh Guidelines dated 11.5.1992 would be applicable. In the circumstances, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, criminal writ petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. Rule discharged accordingly. 10. As learned counsel Mr. P.S. Dighe was appointed in this petition as amicus curiae to defend the case of the petitioner, his fees is quantified to Rs. 1500/-. 11. Learned A.P.P. to communicate this order to the petitioner through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Nashik. Authenticated copy of this order be supplied to the learned A.P.P., at his request. Petition dismissed.