S. K. Phaujdar, J. - (1.) Section 482 Cr. PC. saves the inherent powers of the High Court to secure the ends of justice. The enormity of the power must be deemed to have an inbuilt restriction therein, otherwise the use thereof would be counter-productive. The present case is one instance in which an interim order was passed as far back as in 1982 and the same came up for final decision only in 1995, thereby frustrating the very purpose of Section 482 Cr. P. C. 2 The applicant, Rajendra Prasad alias Rajendra, stood convicted for an offence under Sections 302/34 I. P. C. and was sentenced to life imprisonment by an order dated 4. 5. 1970. His appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed in 1978. During the term of his sentence the new Cr. P. C. (Act No. 2 of 1972) came into force and Section 433-A of the Cr. P. C. was introduced in 1978. This section puts a restriction on the powers of remission or commutation unless the person had undergone atleast 14 years' of imprisonment. The prison laws prevalent in U. P. since prior to the introduction of new Cr. P. C. permitted premature release after a person served an imprisonment of 9 years. The applicant and other convicts undergoing life term challenged constitutional validity of Section 433-A of the Code. The matter was before the Supreme Court and during penden cy of the said writ petitioners, there was direction for release of the petitioners in those cases, including the present applicant, on bail. Accordingly, the applicant was released on bail in the year 1980. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court by a judgment as reported in A. I. R. 1980 S. C. 2147 (Mura v. Union of India ). The order of the Supreme Court is annexed with the application as Annexure 1 and it is indicated therein (in the case of the present applicant) that pending hearing of the connected writ petitions, the ap plicant was directed to be released on bail. In the writ petition, the constitutional validity of Section 433-A was upheld. There was a direction by the concerned Sessions Judge on 22. 6. 1981 to comply with the orders of the Supreme Court and in pursuance thereof non-bailable warrant was issued against the applicant. This order was impugned before this court in this proceeding under Section 482 Cr. P. C. 3. The application was admitted. Respondents were noticed and as an interim measure, the order of the Sessions Judge issuing warrant of arrest against the applicant was stayed. 4. The applicant averred that in its order the Supreme Court had not indicated cancellation of the bail. There is no averment, however, that the applicants were directed, irrespective of constitutional validity of section 433-A Cr. P. C, to continue to remain on bail. 5. It was held in the case reported aforesaid (AIR 1980 SC 2147) that section 433-A was a specific law and it will hold good against special or local law and it would apply in preference to any special or local Taw. Section 433-A really imposes restrictions on Sec tions 432 and 433 which subject all suspension, remission and powers are to be exercised by the appropriate government and not by any judicial authority. The powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. may not, therefore, be invoked for a direction by mis Court for remission or commutation of a sentence. The order of the Sessions Judge was passed in compliance of direction of the Supreme Court and Annexure 1 indicates very clearly that the order of bail was only an interim measure during the pendency of the writ petitions on the question of validity of Section 433-A Cr. P. C. It naturally follows that there was not need to record any specific order concerning this bail in the final order. 6. This applicant may not, therefore, have any grievance against the order of the Sessions Judge unless he was fortified by a specific direction of the Supreme Court to continue to be out of jail even inspite of the disposal of the aforesaid writ petition. 7. This application accordingly stands dismissed. The Sessions Judge concerned may be informed to proceed in accordance with law in terms of the order given by the Supreme Court in the case against the present applicant. Application dismissed. .;