Judgment : 1. Heard both sides. 2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD).No.9519 of 2013 before this Court praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the respondents to extend the benefit of remission by means of G.O.(Ms).No.1155, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 11.09.2008 and to provide remission under Section 432 of Criminal Procedure Code and to release her son Mr.Mohan @ Kalki Mohan, who is confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, in pursuance of the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.182 of 1998 by the Additional Sessions Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam. 3. The Learned counsel for the petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that in W.P. (MD).No.9519 of 2013, this Court, on 07.08.2014 had passed the following order: “The decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 23.04.2013 applies with full force to the case on hand. In the instant case, no case, under Section 224 of I.P.C was registered against the petitioner's son for overstay of the emergency relief. Whereas the case before the Hon'ble Division Bench, the case was registered and subsequently, the same was referred as mistake of fact and the Hon'ble Division Bench after examining the legal position held that there is no bar for applying G.O.Ms.1155 to the cases of such incarceration. For all the above reasons, the petitioner is entitled to avail the benefit under the said G.O and the w rit petition is allowed as prayed for. In these circumstances, there will be a direction to the third respondent to set the detenu Mr. Mohan @ Kalki Mohan, life convict, at liberty unless his presence is required in connection with any other case, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.” 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the certified copy of the order passed in the writ petition was made ready on 22.08.2014 and the same was despatched by the Registry of this Court on 22.08.2014. Further, he had sent the photocopy of the order passed in the writ petition together with representation on 25.08.2014 by speed post through his counsel and the same was received by the respondents on 26.08.2014. Moreover, it is reliably understood that the respondents had received the order copy sent by the registry on 27.08.2014. Further, he had sent the photocopy of the order passed in the writ petition together with representation on 25.08.2014 by speed post through his counsel and the same was received by the respondents on 26.08.2014. Moreover, it is reliably understood that the respondents had received the order copy sent by the registry on 27.08.2014. Under such circumstances, in spite of the specific order passed by this Court in the writ petition, in W.P.(MD).No.9519 of 2013 on 07.08.2014, the respondents till date have not released the petitioner's son, Mr.Mohan @ Kalki Mohan, who is confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, serving the sentence passed in S.C.No.182 of 1988 by the trial court. 4. Apart from the above, the Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner sent a contempt notice dated 20.11.2014 through her counsel to the respondents together with a copy of the order passed by this Court and the same was received by the respondents on 21.11.2014. But, the respondents have not taken any action to comply with the order passed by this Court in the writ petition, although they have received his representation and the contempt notice. 5. At this stage, the Learned counsel for the petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that on receipt of contempt notice, issued by her counsel, the third respondent issued a receipt dated 26.11.2014, stating that the power is vested with the Government to order to release the convict prisoner prematurely and further stated that the matter is under correspondence with the Government. Also, the third respondent informed that on receipt of Government orders, the convict prisoners would be released forthwith. Since the respondents had not only failed to comply with the order passed by this Court, but also willfully disobeyed the same, the petitioner has filed the present contempt petition against the respondents. 6. Per contra, it is the contention of the Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Respondents 1 to 3 that the Third Respondent is not empowered to grant 'Remission' and hence, a clarification was sought from the Second Respondent through letter No.11422/21/2012, dated 26.08.2014 and in turn, the Second Respondent had forwarded the said letter to the first respondent, since the first respondent is the competent authority to release any prisoner on prematurely, by granting the 'Remission'. 7. 7. The Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Respondents 1 to 3 emphatically submits that the power of the State Government to release the life convicts under premature release is under challenge before the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (s) (Criminal) (s).48 of 2014, wherein, an interim order was passed on 09.07.2014 restraining the State Governments from exercising the power of remission to the life convicts and inasmuch as the interim order of the Honourable Supreme Court is in currency, the first respondent is unable to execute any order relating to remission. 8. At this stage, it is to be pertinently pointed out that the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (s) (Criminal) (s).48 of 2014, between Union of India Vs V.Sriharan @ Murugan & Others (with application (s) for stay) had passed the following order: “Having regard to the observations made in para 49 of the referral order, we are of the view that notice may be issued to all the State Governments. Let notice be issued to all the State Governments through their standing counsel representing them in the Supreme Court. Notice is made returnable on July 18, 2014. List the matter before the Constitution Bench on July 22, 2014. In the meanwhile, the State Governments are restrained from exercising power of remission to life convicts.” 9. By means of Reply, the Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not seeking any benefit from the Government and in fact, this Court had passed the specific order on 07.08.2014 in W.P.(MD).No.9519 of 2013, filed by the petitioner by allowing the petition as prayed for and issuing a direction to the third respondent/Superintendent of Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District to set the detenu Mr.Mohan @ Kalki Mohan, a Life Convict, who is confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District at liberty, unless his presence is required with any other case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and further the order of the Honourable Supreme Court dated 09.07.2014 passed in Writ Petition (s) (Criminal) (s).48 of 2014 between Union of India Vs V.Sriharan @ Murugan & Others is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. That apart, the order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid writ petition relates to a case, where investigation was done by the Central Bureau of Investigation and also before the Honourable Supreme Court, G.O.(Ms).No.1155 (Home Prison-IV) Department, dated 11.08.2008 was not challenged and in fact, the benefit of G.O.(Ms).No.1155 (Home Prison-IV) Department, dated 11.08.2008 was granted to all the convicts and many convicts were released in terms of G.O.(Ms).No.1155 (Home Prison-IV) Department, dated 11.08.2008. 10. It is to be borne in mind that the 'word remit' as used in Section 432 of Cr.P.C is not A term of article. Some of the meanings of the 'word remit' are to pardon, to refrain from inflicting and to give up. Remission is reduction of the amount of sentence without changing its character, in the considered opinion of this Court. Further, in case of a remission, the guilt of the offender, is not affected, nor is the sentence of the Court, except in the sense that the individual concerned, does not suffer incarceration for the entire period of sentence, but is relieved from serving out a part of it. 11. It is to be noted that Section 432 of Cr.P.C confines the power of the Government to the suspension of the execution of the sentence or the remission of the whole or any part of the punishment. The conviction under which the sentence is imposed remains unaffected. In fact, Section 432 of Cr.P.C confers no power to the Government to revise the judgment of the Court. But, it only provides with the power to remit the sentence. The remission of punishment assumes the correctness of the conviction and only reduces the punishment in part or in entirety. 12. It cannot be gainsaid that a remission or a sentence does not mean an 'Acquittal' and an aggrieved person has every right to vindicate himself or herself as the case may be. 13. The remission of punishment assumes the correctness of the conviction and only reduces the punishment in part or in entirety. 12. It cannot be gainsaid that a remission or a sentence does not mean an 'Acquittal' and an aggrieved person has every right to vindicate himself or herself as the case may be. 13. Be that as it may, asfar as the present case is concerned, this Court passed an order on 07.08.2014 in W.P.(MD).No.9519 of 2013 filed by the petitioner (as writ petitioner) and indeed, a direction was issued to the Third Respondent/Superintendent of Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District to set the detenu Mr.Mohan @ Kalki Mohan, a Life Convict, who is confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District at liberty, unless his presence is required with any other case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Writ Petition (s) (Criminal) No. (s).48/2014 between Union of India Vs V.Sriharan @ Murugan & Others was on 09.07.2014, earlier to the order passed by this Court on 07.08.2014 in W.P.(MD).No.9519 of 2013, filed by the petitioner against the Secretary to Government (Home Prison-IV) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-09 and two others. It is also represented that Writ Petition (s) (Criminal) No.(s).48/2014 between Union of India Vs V.Sriharan @ Murugan & Others, pending on the file of the Honourable Supreme Court was directed to be listed before the Constitution Bench on 22.07.2014. 14. At this stage, this Court pertinently points out that inasmuch as on 09.07.2014, the Honourable Supreme Court in Writ Petition (s) (Criminal) No.(s) .48/2014 while directing the writ petition to be listed before the Constitution Bench on 22.07.2014 and in the mean-while, had restrained the State Governments from exercising the power of 'Remission' to life convicts and till date, the said writ petition is pending, the relief sought for by the petitioner in the present contempt petition to punish the respondents under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willful and deliberately disobeying the orders passed by this Court in W.P. (MD).No.9519 of 2013, dated 07.08.2014, is not acceded to by this Court. Viewed in that perspective, the contempt petition fails. 15. In the result, this contempt petition is dismissed. No costs.