Summarize the following court judgment. Criminal Appeal Nos. 7 18 7 19/81 & 205 2 12	 2 13 2 17 & 204 of 1990. From the Judgments and Order dated 29.4.1981	 22.5.1981 & 29.4. 1981 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl. W.P. Nos. 38 & 46	 80 84	 86 88 & 40 of 1981. R.S. Suri	 Mr. Mohan Pandey and R.P. Singh for the Appel lants. S.Srinivasan and C.L. Sahu Amicus Curiae for the Respond ents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AHMADI	 J. Special leave granted in all the above matters. These appeals involve the interpretation of paragraphs 516 B and 631 of the Manual for the Superintendence and Management of 150 Jails in the Punjab. The preface to the Manual shows that those paragraphs of the Manual against which a black line appears are	 in substance	 either quotations from the law	 or	 from the Rules having the force of law	 the authority having been indicted on the upper right hand margin of each paragraph whereas the paragraphs which have not been black lined are executive instructions issued from time to time by the Government of India	 or the Local Government or the Inspector General with the sanction and approval of the Local Government. It may at once be mentioned that paragraph 5 16 B contained in Chapter XV entitled 'Release of Prison ers ' is not blacklined while paragraph 631 contained in Chapter XX entitled 'Remission System ' is blacklined. The note in the upper right hand margin of paragraph 516B refers to G of I Resolution No. 159 167 dated 6th September	 1905 and P.G. No. 18608 Jails dated 28th June	 1920. There is no dispute that this paragraph contains an executive instruc tion only. Paragraph 631 contains a note on the upper right hand margin referring to the G of I Resolution No. 161 172 of 2nd May	 1908 and P.G. Letter No. 1669 S (Home) of 31st July	 1908. At the foot of paragraph 631 is a 'Note ' in small type with a right hand marginal note See para 5 16B '. While there can be no controversy that paragraph 631 which is blacklined has statutory force	 the question is whether the Note at the foot thereof	 which is not blacklined	 also has statutory force. Paragraph 5 16 B provides that the case of every con victed prisoner (except females and males below 20 years at the date of the commission of the crime) sentenced to im prisonment for life or imprisonment aggregating to over 14 years and who has undergone a period of detention in Jail amounting	 together with remission earned	 to 14 years	 'shall be ' submitted to the State Government	 through the Inspector General of Prisons	 for orders. In the case of female prisoners or prisoners who were below 20 years on the date of commission of the crime	 reference is required to be similarly made to the State Government on their completing a detention period of 10 years inclusive of remissions. Clause (v)	 however	 provides that notwithstanding anything con tained in the earlier part of the paragraph	 a Superintend ent of jail 'may '	 in his discretion	 refer at any time	 for the orders of the State Government	 the case of any prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for life whose sentence might in the Superintendent 's opinion be suitably commuted to a term of imprisonment. It would appear from a plain reading of this paragraph that in the case of a prisoner who has com pleted 14 years of detention in jail. inclusive remissions earned	 it is imperative on the part of the Superintendent of 151 the Jail to submit his case	 through the I.G. of Prisons	 to the State Government for consideration. The use of the words 'shall be submitted ' bring out this intention when we con trast them with the word 'may ' and the words 'in his discre tion ' used in clause (v) thereto which begins with a non obstante clause. Therefore	 where the intention was to confer a mere discretion on the Superintendent of Jail	 it was made manifest by the use of the expression 'may ' fol lowed by the words 'in his discretion ' and where the inten tion was to cast a duty to submit the case of the State Government	 it was brought out by the word 'shall ' preceding the words 'be submitted . . for the orders of the State Government '. We have	 therefore	 no doubt in our minds that paragraph 5 16B	 though an executive instruction	 has been couched in language which clearly shows that in the former type of cases where the prisoner has completed 14 years of detention in jail	 inclusive of remissions	 his case must be referred to the State Government for consideration. Notwith standing this limitation of completion of 14 years	 clause (v) confers a discretion on the Superintendent of the jail to refer or submit the case of a prisoner to the State Government even before he has completed 14 years if in his opinion the case is fit for commuting the sentence. Paragraph 631 is indisputably a statutory one as it is blacklined. But the blacklined portion of the paragraph merely defines certain expressions including the expression 'life convicts ' which means a person whose sentence amounts to 20 years imprisonment. Then appears the Note which reads as follows: "Note: The case of all life convicts and of all prisoners sentenced to more than 14 years imprisonment or to transpor tation and imprisonment for terms exceeding in the aggregate 14 years shall	 when the term of imprisonment undergone	 together with any remission earned under the rules amounts to 10 or 14 years	 as the case may be	 submitted for the orders of the Local Government in accordance with the in structions contained in the Home Department Resolution No. 159 167 (Jails)	 dated the 6th September	 1905." (See para 516B) It will be seen that the note merely reproduces the gist of paragraph 5 16 B. Even the right side marginal note says 'see para 5 16 B ' and is based on the same Resolution of 6th September	 1905 on which paragraph 5 16 B is based. The note is not blacklined as in the case of 152 the Note below paragraph 633. It was	 therefore	 urged that when paragraph 516 B is not blacklined	 this note below. paragraph 63 1	 which too is not blacklined	 can not be construed to be statutory in character merely because para graph 631 incorporates a statutory rule. Since the source of paragraph 5 16 B and the Note at the foot of paragraph 631 is the same	 namely	 the Resolution of 6th September	 1905	 counsel for the State of Punjab submit ted that the learned Judge in the High Court was not right in concluding that the Note being an integral part of the statutory rule incorporated in paragraph 631 must receive the same character and if there is a conflict between the two	 the note which is statutory in character must prevail. The difficulty arises because the State Government has issued instructions in 1971 which has the effect of modify ing the executive instructions in paragraph 5 16 B	 in that	 it is now provided that a convict must have undergone 8 1/2 years of substantive sentence before his case for premature release can be submitted to the State Government for consid eration. A further change was made by an executive instruc tion issued in 1976 whereby it was provided that cases of convicts who were sentenced to death and whose sentences were subsequently commuted to life imprisonment will not be submitted to the State Government for consideration unless the convict has undergone atleast 14 years of substantive imprisonment. The High Court has taken the view that while paragraph 5 16 B would stand amended or modified by the subsequent executive instructions	 the statutory rule con tained in the Note below paragraph 631 cannot be touched by mere executive instructions and hence it still holds the field and the Superintendent for the jail is bound to submit the case to the State Government ignoring the change brought about by the executive instructions of 1971 and 1976. In other words	 according to the High Court the executive instructions of 1971 and 1976 being in conflict with the statutory Note must give way to the latter. Before we deal with the above question it may be advan tageous to refer to Sections 432	433 and 433A of the Crimi nal Procedure Code which have a bearing on the question of premature release. Section 432 confers on the appropriate Government the power to suspend the execution of the sen tence or remit the whole or part of the sentence with or without conditions. Section 433 confers power on the appro priate Government to commute (a) a sentence of death for any other punishment provided under the Penal Code	 (b) a sen tence of imprisonment for life	 for imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or 153 fine (c) a sentence of rigorous imprisonment	 for simple imprisonment or fine or (d) a sentence of simple imprison ment for fine. Section 433A provides that where an offender is visited with a sentence of imprisonment for life for an offence for which death is one of the punishments or where a sentence of death is commuted under Section 433 into one of punishment for life	 such persons shall not be released from prison unless he has served atleast 14 years of imprison ment. It will thus seen that Section 432 and 433 confer powers of suspension	 remission and commutation of sentences on the appropriate Government	 an expression defined in Sub section (7) of Section 432 of the Code. In Gopal Vinayak Godse vs State of Maharashtra	 ; 	 this Court held that a sentence of transportation for life or imprisonment for life must be treated as trans portation or imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convict 's normal life	 unless the said sen tence is commuted or remitted by the appropriate Government. Dealing with the Rules framed under the 	 this Court held that even though they were statutory in character they did not confer an indefeasible right on a prisoner sentenced to transportation for life an uncondi tional release on the expiry of a particular term including remissions. It held that the rules framed under the enabled a prisoner to earn remissions ordinary	 special and State the said remissions were to be given credit to wards his term of imprisonment and for the purpose of work ing out the remissions the sentence of transportation for life was equated with a definite period	 but it is only for the particular purpose and not for any other purpose. Lastly it observed that the question of remission was exclusively within the province of the appropriate Government. In Maru Ram vs Union of India	 ; this Court repelled the challenge to Section 433A both on the question of competence of Parliament to enact the provision and its constitutional validity. While interpreting Sections 432	433 and 433A of the Code	 this Court pointed out that wide powers or remission and commutation of sentences were conferred on the appropriate government but an exception was carved out for the extreme category of convicts who were sentenced to death but whose sentence had been commuted under Section 433 into one of imprisonment for life. Such a prisoner is not to be released unless he has served atleast 14 years of imprisonment. The Court refused to read down Section 433A to give overriding effect to the Remission Rules of the State. It categorically ruled that Remission Rules and like provisions stand excluded so far as 'lifers ' punished for capital offences are concerned. Remissions by way of 154 reward or otherwise cannot cut down the sentence awarded by the Court except under Section 432 of the Code or in exer cise of constitutional power under Article 72/161 of the Constitution. Remission cannot detract from the quantum and quality of the Judicial sentence except to the extent per mitted by Section 432 of the Code	 subject of course to Section 433A	 or where the clemency power under the Consti tution is invoked. But while exercising the Constitutional power under Article 72/161	 the President or the Governor	 as the case may be	 must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The power under Article 72 and 161 of the Consti tution is absolute and cannot be lettered by any statutory provision such as Sections 432	433 and 433A of the Code. This power cannot be altered	 modified or interfered with in any manner whatsoever by any statutory provisions or Prison Rules. Now	 paragraph 5 16 B requires that the case of every convict sentenced to imprisonment for life or imprisonment aggregating to more than 14 years and who has undergone a period of detention in jail amounting	 together with remis sion	 to 14 years	 shall be submitted to the State Govern ment for orders. The State Government 's instruction issued in 1971 provides that the convict must have undergone 8 1/2 years of substantive sentence before his case could be submitted to the Government. The other instruction issued in 1976 provides that the case of a convict who was sentenced to death and whose sentence was subsequently commuted to life imprisonment will not be submitted unless he has under gone atleast 14 years of substantive imprisonment. Remission schemes are introduced to ensure prison discipline and good behaviour and not to upset sentences; if the sentences is of imprisonment for life. ordinarily the convict has to pass the remainder of his life in prison but remissions and commutations are granted in exercise of power under Sections 432 and 433 carving out an exception in the category of those convicts who have already enjoyed the generosity of executive power on the commutation of death sentence to one of life imprisonment. Even in such cases Section 433A of the Code or the executive instruction of 1976 does not insist that the convict pass the remainder of his life in prison but merely insists that he shall have served time for at least 14 years. In the case of other 'lifers ' the insistence under the 1971 amendment is that he should have a period of atleast 81/2 years of incarceration before release. The 1976 amendment was possibly introduced to make the remission scheme consistent with Section 433A of the Code. Since Section 433A is prospective	 so also would be the 1971 and 1976 amendments. 155 But the High Court has come to the conclusion that Paragraph 5 16 B	 as amended by the executive instructions of 1971 and 1976	 cannot override the statutory rule con tained in Paragraph 631 read with the note appended thereto. Counsel for the State argued that the Note at the foot of Paragraph 631 merely reproduces Paragraph 5 16 B; the mar ginal note thereto says to in no uncertain terms and	 there fore	 the Note cannot be ascribed a statutory character. We think there is considerable force in this submission. In the first place it must be realised that according to the pref ace only those paragraphs which are blacklined have statuto ry character. The Note in question is not so blacklined. Where the note is intended to be given statutory character it is blacklined	 see the note at the foot of Paragraph 633. Secondly the source of paragraph 5 16 B and the Note is the very same Resolution No. 159 167 of the Government of India dated 6th September	 1905. It is difficult to believe that the same resolution was intended to be a mere executive instruction in one part of the Manual and was intended to be conferred a statutory character in another part of the same Manual. Thirdly the marginal note to the Note in question in terms refers to Paragraph 5 16 B which means it was merely a reproduction of the latter paragraph. In the circumstances if the Note was intended to be conferred a statutory charac ter	 it would have been blacklined in keeping with the scheme of the Manual. These are clear indicators which support the submission of the learned counsel for the State. Lastly Paragraph 631 classifies prisoners and fixes the duration of their sentences e.g. 20 years for life convicts and class 3 prisoners and 25 years for class 1 and 2 prison ers. The Note at the foot of the paragraph is by way of a reminder that notwithstanding the duration fixed under the said rule	 Paragraph 5 16 B requires that cases of such prisoners should be submitted on the expiry of the duration fixed under Paragraph 5 16 B. It	 therefore	 seems clear to us that the Note is neither an integral part of Paragraph 631 nor does it have statutory flavour as held by the High Court. We	 therefore	 find it difficult to uphold the view taken by the High Court in this behalf. We may make it clear that Paragraph 516B insofar as it stands amended or modified by the 1971 and 1976 executive orders is prospective in character. We allow these appeals and set aside the judgment and Order of the High Court in each of these appeals. G.N. Appeals allowed.

Paragraph 516 B of the Manual for the Superintendence and Management of Jails in Punjab provides for premature release of prisoners. The State Government had issued in structions in 1971 modifying the executive instructions in paragraph 516B	 to the effect that a convict must have undergone 8 1/2 years of substantive sentence before his case could be submitted to the Government for consideration. Again there was another executive instruction in 1976 which provided that cases of convicts who were sentenced to death and whose sentences were subsequently commuted to life imprisonment would not be submitted to the State Government for consideration unless the convict has undergone atleast 14 years of substantive imprisonment. Paragraph 631 of the said Manual relates to remission of sentences. The note below paragraph 631 reproduces the gist of paragraph 516 B. Going by the preface of the Manual	 paragraph 631 has statutory force whereas paragraph 5 16B being in the nature of executive instruction has no statutory force. The respondents filed Criminal Writ Petitions before the High Court praying for their premature release on the basis that the note under paragraph 631 has statutory force	 the executive instructions issued in 1971 and 1976 have to be ignored and that the Jail Superintendent was bound to submit their cases to the Government for premature release. 148 The High Court allowed the claim of the respondents and held that the executive instructions issued in 1971 and 1976 being in conflict with the statutory note must give way to the latter. These appeals	 by special leave	 preferred by the State Government challenge the High Court 's decision on the ground that the source of paragraphs 516 and the note at the foot of paragraph 631 being the same	 viz.	 resolution dated 6th September	 1905	 it cannot be concluded that the note being an integral part of the statutory rule incorporated in paragraph 631 must receive the same character and in case of conflict between the two	 the note which is statutory in character must prevail. Allowing the appeals	 this Court	 HELD: 1. Remissions by way of reward or otherwise cannot cut down the sentence awarded by the Court except under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code or in exercise of constitutional power under Article 72/161 of the Constitu tion. Remission cannot detract from the quantum and quality of the judicial sentence except to the extent permitted by Section 432 of the Code	 subject of course to Section 433A	 or where the clemency power under the Constitution is in voked. The power under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitu tion is absolute and cannot be lettered by any statutory provision such as Sections 432	 433 and 433A of the Code. This power cannot be altered	 modified or interfered with in any manner whatsoever by any statutory provisions or Prison Rules. [153H; 154A C] 2. Remission schemes are introduced to ensure prison discipline and good behaviour and not to upset sentences. If the sentence is of imprisonment for life	 ordinarily the convict has to pass the remainder of his life in prison but remissions and commutations are granted in exercise of power under Sections 432 and 433 Cr. P.C.	 carving out an exception in the category of those convicts who have already enjoyed the generosity of executive power on the commutation of death sentence to one of life imprisonment. Even in such cases Section 433A of the Code or the executive instruction of 1976 does not insist that the convict pass the remainder of his life in prison but merely insists that he shall have served time for at least 14 years. In the case of other 'lifers ' the insistence under the 1971 amendment is that he should have a period of atleast 8 1/2 years of incarceration before release. The 1976 amendment was possibly introduced to make the remission scheme consistent with Section 433A of the Code. Since Section 433A is prospective	 so also 149 would be the 1971 and 1976 amendments. [154E H] Gopal Vinayak Godse vs State of Maharashtra	 ; and Maru Ram vs Union of India	 ; 	 relied on. According to the preface only those paragraphs which are blacklined have statutory character. The note in ques tion is not so blacklined. The source of paragraph 516B and the note is the very same Resolution No. 159 167 of the Government of India dated 6th September	 1905. It is diffi cult to believe that the same resolution was intended to be a mere executive instruction in one part of the Manual and was intended to be conferred a statutory character in anoth er. The marginal note to the Note in question in terms refers to paragraph 516 B which means it was merely a repro duction of the latter paragraph. In the circumstances	 if the note was intended to be conferred a statutory character	 it would have been blacklined in keeping with the scheme of the Manual. Paragraph 631 classifies prisoners and fixes the duration of their sentences e.g.	 20 years for life convicts and class 3 prisoners and 25 years for class 1 and 2 prison ers. The note at the foot of the paragraph is by way of a reminder that notwithstanding the duration fixed under the said rule	 paragraph 5 16B requires that cases of such prisoners should be submitted on the expiry of the duration fixed under paragraph 516B. It is	 therefore	 clear that the note is neither an integral part of paragraph 631; nor does it have statutory flavour as held by the High Court. [155B F]