Habeas corpus type writ -as her husband - in imprisonment - more than 20 years as her mercy petitions were rejected twice made - meaning of life imprisonment reiterated that unless properly remitted by competent authority, life imprisonment means imprisonment for entire lifetime of convict - No court set him free beyond the law with out remission by appropriate authority =
In the meantime, the petitioner has undergone custody for more than
20 years including the period of remission and about 17 years of actual
custody and, therefore, it is alleged that his detention has become
unlawful and illegal.
in Life Convict Bangal alias
Khoka alias Prasanta Sen v. B.K. Srivastava and others, (2013) 3 SCC 425,
This Court while defined meaning of life imprisonment reiterated that
unless properly remitted by competent authority, life imprisonment means
imprisonment for entire lifetime of convict =
In the present case, the mercy petitions filed by the petitioner’s
wife were rejected twice.
The case of the petitioner was considered by the
Review Board constituted by the State of West Bengal, which rejected the
prayer.
Therefore, no relief can be granted by this Court under Article 32
of the Constitution of India.
However, in view of the fact that the
petitioner has actually undergone more than 18 years of imprisonment; the
Superintendant. Alipore Central Jail of his own wrote a letter dated
18.09.2003 requested for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner and
recommended release of the petitioner.
We are of the view that if any
application for remission is filed by the petitioner or on behalf of the
petitioner, the Competent Authority place the same before the Review Board
and which will reconsider the case of the petitioner for premature release
in accordance with law and guidelines issued by the State.
The appropriate
Government would be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with
law.
15. The petitioner was released on bail by an order passed by this Court
on 7.01.2005. We vacate that order. The respondents would be at liberty to
take the petitioner into custody and as regards remission the State
Government may pass any appropriate order in accordance with law.
16. The Writ Petition is dismissed with aforesaid observations.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.229 OF 2004
ARJUN JADAV … PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J
The petitioner, who was convicted for the offence u/s 302/34 IPC, has
preferred this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
in the nature of habeas corpus for setting the petitioner at liberty from
the illegal custody in the prison/correctional Home.
2. The petitioner who was made an accused in a murder case no.S.T 3(9)
for offence u/s 302/34 IPC, was arrested on 5.03.1985. According to the
petitioner, he has undergone conviction in custody of the respondent, which
should be counted towards sentence are as follows:
3. After trial, the petitioner was convicted u/s 302/34 IPC vide
judgment dated 15.01.1991 along with another co-accused Partap Praharaj,
who according to the petitioner, fired one gun shot on the abdomen of the
deceased and was sentenced to “imprisonment for life simplicitor” (not
rigorous imprisonment for life) by the Court of IXth Additional Session
Judge, Alipore, Calcutta.
4. Against the conviction, the petitioner and co-accused filed Criminal
Appeal No.56 of 1991 before Calcutta High Court which was dismissed on
9.04.1992. Thereafter, special leave petition against their conviction was
also not entertained by this Court.
5. Further case of the petitioner is that he became eligible under Rule
591 (1-4) of the West Bengal Jail Code for considering his case for
premature release under 14 years Rule, including remission, which according
to the petitioner should be 10 years of actual imprisonment plus 4 years
remission. Notwithstanding the law laid down in the West Bengal Jail Code
and law laid down by this Court, the case of the petitioner was not
considered and thereby respondents are violating his statutory rights and
provisions.
6. In the year 2001, the wife of the petitioner made a mercy petition to
the Competent Authority of the State for premature release of the
petitioner but the same was rejected by the State Government on 12.4.2002
although the petitioner had a consistent good record in Jail/Correctional
Home and his case was recommended by the Prison Authority for his release.
Another mercy petition preferred by petitioner’s wife was also rejected by
the State Government. The Superintendent, Alipore Central Jail of his own
wrote a letter dated 18.9.2003 to the State Government for reconsideration
of the case of petitioner and strongly recommended his release. Thereafter
nothing was heard from the State Government.
7. In the meantime, the petitioner has undergone custody for more than
20 years including the period of remission and about 17 years of actual
custody and, therefore, it is alleged that his detention has become
unlawful and illegal.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the length of
duration of the imprisonment for life is equivalent to 20 years of
imprisonment and that too subject to further remission admissible under the
law. The petitioner is liable to be released under Rule 751 (C) of the
West Bengal Jail Code. Reliance was also placed on the explanation to
Section 61 of the West Bengal Correctional Services Act, 1992 (West Bengal
Act XXXII of 1992) whereunder the imprisonment for life is equated to a
term of 20 years of imprisonment.
9. On 7.1.2005, this Court directed to list the matter after decision in
W.P (Crl.) No.45 of 1998 titled Md. Munna v. Union of India & Ors. since
learned counsel for the petitioner informed that the arguments in the said
case have already been concluded and judgment was awaited. By the said
order, this Court further directed to release the petitioner on parole on
his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the satisfaction
of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore (24 Parganas, District Kolkata-27)
pending decision of this case.
10. The aforesaid Writ Petition (Crl.) No.45 of 1998 was heard with
another Writ Petition (Crl.) No.50 of 2003. In the said case similar
argument was made that the length of the duration of the imprisonment of
life is equivalent to 20 years of imprisonment and that too subject to
further remission admissible under the law. In the said case reliance was
also placed on Rule 751(c) of the West Bengal Jail Code and explanation to
Section 61 of the West Bengal Correctional Services Act, 1992 where under
the imprisonment for life is equated to a term of 20 years imprisonment.
The aforesaid writ petitions were dismissed by this Court on 16.09.2005,
reported in (2005) 7 SCC 417, Mohd. Munna v. Union of India & Ors.
11. Similar issue was considered by Constitutional Bench of this Court in
Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR) 1961 SC 600. In the said
case this Court held that the sentence of imprisonment for life is not for
any definite period and the imprisonment for life must, prima facie, be
treated as imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the
convicted person’s natural life. In paragraph 5, the Court observed:
“5. … It does not say that transportation for life shall be deemed to be
transportation for twenty years for all purposes; nor does the amended
section which substitutes the words “imprisonment for life” for
“transportation for life” enable the drawing of any such all-embracing
fiction. A sentence of transportation for life or imprisonment for life
must prima facie be treated as transportation or imprisonment for the whole
of the remaining period of the convicted person’s natural life.”
In paragraph 8, this Court held:
“8. Briefly stated the legal position is this: Before Act 26 of 1955 a
sentence of transportation for life could be undergone by a prisoner by way
of rigorous imprisonment for life in a designated prison in India. After
the said Act, such a convict shall be dealt with in the same manner as one
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for the same term. Unless the said
sentence is commuted or remitted by appropriate authority under the
relevant provisions of the Penal Code or the Code of Criminal Procedure, a
prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment is bound in law to serve the life
term in prison. The Rules framed under the Prisons Act enable such a
prisoner to earn remissions—ordinary, special and State—and the said
remissions will be given credit towards his term of imprisonment. For the
purpose of working out the remissions the sentence of transportation for
life is ordinarily equated with a definite period, but it is only for that
particular purpose and not for any other purpose. As the sentence of
transportation for life or its prison equivalent, the life imprisonment, is
one of indefinite duration, the remissions so earned do not in practice
help such a convict as it is not possible to predicate (sic predict) the
time of his death. That is why the Rules provide for a procedure to enable
the appropriate Government to remit the sentence under Section 401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure on a consideration of the relevant factors,
including the period of remissions earned. The question of remission is
exclusively within the province of the appropriate Government; and in this
case it is admitted that, though the appropriate Government made certain
remissions under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it did not
remit the entire sentence. We, therefore, hold that the petitioner has not
yet acquired any right to release.”
12. In Mohd. Munna v. Union of India and others (supra) referring to
decisions of this Court in Naib Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. (1983) 2
SCC 454, Privy Council decision in Kishori Lal v. Emperor (AIR) 32 1945 PC
64 and Constitutional Bench decision in Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of
Maharashtra, (AIR) 1961 SC 600 this Court held:
“8. The above contention of the petitioner’s counsel is only to be
rejected. The imprisonment of the life convicts are being carried out on
the strength of the order passed by the court. The provisions contained in
the Prisoners Act are only procedural in nature. The preamble to the Act
itself states that the Act is meant to consolidate the law relating to
prisoners confined by order of a court and Section 32 of the Prisoners Act,
1900 specifically says about the persons under sentence of transportation
and when the punishment of transportation itself was deleted, the
provisions of Section 32 regarding the temporary custody of the prisoners,
there is no relevance for the appointed places within the State or outside
the State for a person under sentence of transportation. The prison
authorities are bound to keep the persons who are sentenced to imprisonment
for life in jails. Of course, some of the provisions in the Prisoners Act,
1900 were not suitably amended so as to be in conformity with the sentence
of life imprisonment introduced by Act 26 of 1955. That does not make the
detention illegal.”
9………………Therefore, it is clear that if a person is sentenced to
transportation for a term, the same is converted to rigorous imprisonment
for the same duration. Naturally, the transportation for life will only be
treated as rigorous imprisonment for life.
10. If a portion of the period of transportation for life is to be treated
as sentence of rigorous imprisonment for the same term, naturally, the
entire transportation period is to be treated as “rigorous imprisonment for
life”. Imprisonment for life is a class of punishment different from
ordinary imprisonment which could be of two descriptions, namely,
“rigorous” or “simple”. It was unnecessary for the legislature to
specifically mention that the imprisonment for life would be rigorous
imprisonment for life as it is imposed as punishment for grave offences.”
“16………….We are bound by the above dicta laid down by the Constitution Bench
and we hold that life imprisonment is not equivalent to imprisonment for
fourteen years or for twenty years as contended by the petitioner.
17. Thus, all the contentions raised by the petitioner fail and the
petitioner is not entitled to be released on any of the grounds urged in
the writ petition so long as there is no order of remission passed by the
appropriate Government in his favour. We make it clear that our decision
need not be taken as expression of our view that the petitioner is not
entitled to any remission at all. The appropriate Government would be at
liberty to pass any appropriate order of remission in accordance with law.”
13. Similar view was taken by this Court in Life Convict Bangal alias
Khoka alias Prasanta Sen v. B.K. Srivastava and others, (2013) 3 SCC 425,
This Court while defined meaning of life imprisonment reiterated that
unless properly remitted by competent authority, life imprisonment means
imprisonment for entire lifetime of convict, this Court held:
“18. It is clear that neither Section 57 IPC nor the Explanation to Section
61 of the W.B. Act lay down that a life imprisonment prisoner has to
[pic]be released after completion of 20 years. 20 years mentioned in the
Explanation to Section 61 of the W.B. Act is only for the purpose of
ordering remission. If the State Government taking into
consideration various aspects refused to grant remission of the whole
period then the petitioner cannot take advantage of the above Explanation
and
even Section 57 IPC and seek for premature release. Further, the question
of remission of the entire sentence or a part of it lies within the
exclusive domain of the appropriate Government under Section 432 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and neither Section 57 IPC nor any rules
or local Acts (in the case on hand, the W.B. Act) can stultify the effect
of the sentence of life imprisonment given by the Court under IPC. To put
it clear, once a person is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment unless
imprisonment for life is commuted by the competent authority, he has to
undergo imprisonment for the whole of his life. It is equally well settled
that Section 57 IPC does not, in any way, limit the punishment of
imprisonment for life to a term of 20 years.”
14. In the present case, the mercy petitions filed by the petitioner’s
wife were rejected twice. The case of the petitioner was considered by the
Review Board constituted by the State of West Bengal, which rejected the
prayer. Therefore, no relief can be granted by this Court under Article 32
of the Constitution of India. However, in view of the fact that the
petitioner has actually undergone more than 18 years of imprisonment; the
Superintendant. Alipore Central Jail of his own wrote a letter dated
18.09.2003 requested for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner and
recommended release of the petitioner. We are of the view that if any
application for remission is filed by the petitioner or on behalf of the
petitioner, the Competent Authority place the same before the Review Board
and which will reconsider the case of the petitioner for premature release
in accordance with law and guidelines issued by the State. The appropriate
Government would be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with
law.
15. The petitioner was released on bail by an order passed by this Court
on 7.01.2005. We vacate that order. The respondents would be at liberty to
take the petitioner into custody and as regards remission the State
Government may pass any appropriate order in accordance with law.
16. The Writ Petition is dismissed with aforesaid observations.
…………………………………………J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
…………………………………………J.
(RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)
NEW DELHI,
JULY 2, 2014.
-----------------------
|Period |Year |Month |Days |
|5.3.1985-20.6.1986 |1 |3 |15 |
|15.1.1987-22.9.1988 |1 |8 |7 |
|26.4.1990-22.9.1990 | |4 |26 |
|Total |3 |6 |18 |
In the meantime, the petitioner has undergone custody for more than
20 years including the period of remission and about 17 years of actual
custody and, therefore, it is alleged that his detention has become
unlawful and illegal.
in Life Convict Bangal alias
Khoka alias Prasanta Sen v. B.K. Srivastava and others, (2013) 3 SCC 425,
This Court while defined meaning of life imprisonment reiterated that
unless properly remitted by competent authority, life imprisonment means
imprisonment for entire lifetime of convict =
In the present case, the mercy petitions filed by the petitioner’s
wife were rejected twice.
The case of the petitioner was considered by the
Review Board constituted by the State of West Bengal, which rejected the
prayer.
Therefore, no relief can be granted by this Court under Article 32
of the Constitution of India.
However, in view of the fact that the
petitioner has actually undergone more than 18 years of imprisonment; the
Superintendant. Alipore Central Jail of his own wrote a letter dated
18.09.2003 requested for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner and
recommended release of the petitioner.
We are of the view that if any
application for remission is filed by the petitioner or on behalf of the
petitioner, the Competent Authority place the same before the Review Board
and which will reconsider the case of the petitioner for premature release
in accordance with law and guidelines issued by the State.
The appropriate
Government would be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with
law.
15. The petitioner was released on bail by an order passed by this Court
on 7.01.2005. We vacate that order. The respondents would be at liberty to
take the petitioner into custody and as regards remission the State
Government may pass any appropriate order in accordance with law.
16. The Writ Petition is dismissed with aforesaid observations.
2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41723
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.229 OF 2004
ARJUN JADAV … PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J
The petitioner, who was convicted for the offence u/s 302/34 IPC, has
preferred this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
in the nature of habeas corpus for setting the petitioner at liberty from
the illegal custody in the prison/correctional Home.
2. The petitioner who was made an accused in a murder case no.S.T 3(9)
for offence u/s 302/34 IPC, was arrested on 5.03.1985. According to the
petitioner, he has undergone conviction in custody of the respondent, which
should be counted towards sentence are as follows:
3. After trial, the petitioner was convicted u/s 302/34 IPC vide
judgment dated 15.01.1991 along with another co-accused Partap Praharaj,
who according to the petitioner, fired one gun shot on the abdomen of the
deceased and was sentenced to “imprisonment for life simplicitor” (not
rigorous imprisonment for life) by the Court of IXth Additional Session
Judge, Alipore, Calcutta.
4. Against the conviction, the petitioner and co-accused filed Criminal
Appeal No.56 of 1991 before Calcutta High Court which was dismissed on
9.04.1992. Thereafter, special leave petition against their conviction was
also not entertained by this Court.
5. Further case of the petitioner is that he became eligible under Rule
591 (1-4) of the West Bengal Jail Code for considering his case for
premature release under 14 years Rule, including remission, which according
to the petitioner should be 10 years of actual imprisonment plus 4 years
remission. Notwithstanding the law laid down in the West Bengal Jail Code
and law laid down by this Court, the case of the petitioner was not
considered and thereby respondents are violating his statutory rights and
provisions.
6. In the year 2001, the wife of the petitioner made a mercy petition to
the Competent Authority of the State for premature release of the
petitioner but the same was rejected by the State Government on 12.4.2002
although the petitioner had a consistent good record in Jail/Correctional
Home and his case was recommended by the Prison Authority for his release.
Another mercy petition preferred by petitioner’s wife was also rejected by
the State Government. The Superintendent, Alipore Central Jail of his own
wrote a letter dated 18.9.2003 to the State Government for reconsideration
of the case of petitioner and strongly recommended his release. Thereafter
nothing was heard from the State Government.
7. In the meantime, the petitioner has undergone custody for more than
20 years including the period of remission and about 17 years of actual
custody and, therefore, it is alleged that his detention has become
unlawful and illegal.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the length of
duration of the imprisonment for life is equivalent to 20 years of
imprisonment and that too subject to further remission admissible under the
law. The petitioner is liable to be released under Rule 751 (C) of the
West Bengal Jail Code. Reliance was also placed on the explanation to
Section 61 of the West Bengal Correctional Services Act, 1992 (West Bengal
Act XXXII of 1992) whereunder the imprisonment for life is equated to a
term of 20 years of imprisonment.
9. On 7.1.2005, this Court directed to list the matter after decision in
W.P (Crl.) No.45 of 1998 titled Md. Munna v. Union of India & Ors. since
learned counsel for the petitioner informed that the arguments in the said
case have already been concluded and judgment was awaited. By the said
order, this Court further directed to release the petitioner on parole on
his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the satisfaction
of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore (24 Parganas, District Kolkata-27)
pending decision of this case.
10. The aforesaid Writ Petition (Crl.) No.45 of 1998 was heard with
another Writ Petition (Crl.) No.50 of 2003. In the said case similar
argument was made that the length of the duration of the imprisonment of
life is equivalent to 20 years of imprisonment and that too subject to
further remission admissible under the law. In the said case reliance was
also placed on Rule 751(c) of the West Bengal Jail Code and explanation to
Section 61 of the West Bengal Correctional Services Act, 1992 where under
the imprisonment for life is equated to a term of 20 years imprisonment.
The aforesaid writ petitions were dismissed by this Court on 16.09.2005,
reported in (2005) 7 SCC 417, Mohd. Munna v. Union of India & Ors.
11. Similar issue was considered by Constitutional Bench of this Court in
Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR) 1961 SC 600. In the said
case this Court held that the sentence of imprisonment for life is not for
any definite period and the imprisonment for life must, prima facie, be
treated as imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the
convicted person’s natural life. In paragraph 5, the Court observed:
“5. … It does not say that transportation for life shall be deemed to be
transportation for twenty years for all purposes; nor does the amended
section which substitutes the words “imprisonment for life” for
“transportation for life” enable the drawing of any such all-embracing
fiction. A sentence of transportation for life or imprisonment for life
must prima facie be treated as transportation or imprisonment for the whole
of the remaining period of the convicted person’s natural life.”
In paragraph 8, this Court held:
“8. Briefly stated the legal position is this: Before Act 26 of 1955 a
sentence of transportation for life could be undergone by a prisoner by way
of rigorous imprisonment for life in a designated prison in India. After
the said Act, such a convict shall be dealt with in the same manner as one
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for the same term. Unless the said
sentence is commuted or remitted by appropriate authority under the
relevant provisions of the Penal Code or the Code of Criminal Procedure, a
prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment is bound in law to serve the life
term in prison. The Rules framed under the Prisons Act enable such a
prisoner to earn remissions—ordinary, special and State—and the said
remissions will be given credit towards his term of imprisonment. For the
purpose of working out the remissions the sentence of transportation for
life is ordinarily equated with a definite period, but it is only for that
particular purpose and not for any other purpose. As the sentence of
transportation for life or its prison equivalent, the life imprisonment, is
one of indefinite duration, the remissions so earned do not in practice
help such a convict as it is not possible to predicate (sic predict) the
time of his death. That is why the Rules provide for a procedure to enable
the appropriate Government to remit the sentence under Section 401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure on a consideration of the relevant factors,
including the period of remissions earned. The question of remission is
exclusively within the province of the appropriate Government; and in this
case it is admitted that, though the appropriate Government made certain
remissions under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it did not
remit the entire sentence. We, therefore, hold that the petitioner has not
yet acquired any right to release.”
12. In Mohd. Munna v. Union of India and others (supra) referring to
decisions of this Court in Naib Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. (1983) 2
SCC 454, Privy Council decision in Kishori Lal v. Emperor (AIR) 32 1945 PC
64 and Constitutional Bench decision in Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of
Maharashtra, (AIR) 1961 SC 600 this Court held:
“8. The above contention of the petitioner’s counsel is only to be
rejected. The imprisonment of the life convicts are being carried out on
the strength of the order passed by the court. The provisions contained in
the Prisoners Act are only procedural in nature. The preamble to the Act
itself states that the Act is meant to consolidate the law relating to
prisoners confined by order of a court and Section 32 of the Prisoners Act,
1900 specifically says about the persons under sentence of transportation
and when the punishment of transportation itself was deleted, the
provisions of Section 32 regarding the temporary custody of the prisoners,
there is no relevance for the appointed places within the State or outside
the State for a person under sentence of transportation. The prison
authorities are bound to keep the persons who are sentenced to imprisonment
for life in jails. Of course, some of the provisions in the Prisoners Act,
1900 were not suitably amended so as to be in conformity with the sentence
of life imprisonment introduced by Act 26 of 1955. That does not make the
detention illegal.”
9………………Therefore, it is clear that if a person is sentenced to
transportation for a term, the same is converted to rigorous imprisonment
for the same duration. Naturally, the transportation for life will only be
treated as rigorous imprisonment for life.
10. If a portion of the period of transportation for life is to be treated
as sentence of rigorous imprisonment for the same term, naturally, the
entire transportation period is to be treated as “rigorous imprisonment for
life”. Imprisonment for life is a class of punishment different from
ordinary imprisonment which could be of two descriptions, namely,
“rigorous” or “simple”. It was unnecessary for the legislature to
specifically mention that the imprisonment for life would be rigorous
imprisonment for life as it is imposed as punishment for grave offences.”
“16………….We are bound by the above dicta laid down by the Constitution Bench
and we hold that life imprisonment is not equivalent to imprisonment for
fourteen years or for twenty years as contended by the petitioner.
17. Thus, all the contentions raised by the petitioner fail and the
petitioner is not entitled to be released on any of the grounds urged in
the writ petition so long as there is no order of remission passed by the
appropriate Government in his favour. We make it clear that our decision
need not be taken as expression of our view that the petitioner is not
entitled to any remission at all. The appropriate Government would be at
liberty to pass any appropriate order of remission in accordance with law.”
13. Similar view was taken by this Court in Life Convict Bangal alias
Khoka alias Prasanta Sen v. B.K. Srivastava and others, (2013) 3 SCC 425,
This Court while defined meaning of life imprisonment reiterated that
unless properly remitted by competent authority, life imprisonment means
imprisonment for entire lifetime of convict, this Court held:
“18. It is clear that neither Section 57 IPC nor the Explanation to Section
61 of the W.B. Act lay down that a life imprisonment prisoner has to
[pic]be released after completion of 20 years. 20 years mentioned in the
Explanation to Section 61 of the W.B. Act is only for the purpose of
ordering remission. If the State Government taking into
consideration various aspects refused to grant remission of the whole
period then the petitioner cannot take advantage of the above Explanation
and
even Section 57 IPC and seek for premature release. Further, the question
of remission of the entire sentence or a part of it lies within the
exclusive domain of the appropriate Government under Section 432 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and neither Section 57 IPC nor any rules
or local Acts (in the case on hand, the W.B. Act) can stultify the effect
of the sentence of life imprisonment given by the Court under IPC. To put
it clear, once a person is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment unless
imprisonment for life is commuted by the competent authority, he has to
undergo imprisonment for the whole of his life. It is equally well settled
that Section 57 IPC does not, in any way, limit the punishment of
imprisonment for life to a term of 20 years.”
14. In the present case, the mercy petitions filed by the petitioner’s
wife were rejected twice. The case of the petitioner was considered by the
Review Board constituted by the State of West Bengal, which rejected the
prayer. Therefore, no relief can be granted by this Court under Article 32
of the Constitution of India. However, in view of the fact that the
petitioner has actually undergone more than 18 years of imprisonment; the
Superintendant. Alipore Central Jail of his own wrote a letter dated
18.09.2003 requested for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner and
recommended release of the petitioner. We are of the view that if any
application for remission is filed by the petitioner or on behalf of the
petitioner, the Competent Authority place the same before the Review Board
and which will reconsider the case of the petitioner for premature release
in accordance with law and guidelines issued by the State. The appropriate
Government would be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with
law.
15. The petitioner was released on bail by an order passed by this Court
on 7.01.2005. We vacate that order. The respondents would be at liberty to
take the petitioner into custody and as regards remission the State
Government may pass any appropriate order in accordance with law.
16. The Writ Petition is dismissed with aforesaid observations.
…………………………………………J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
…………………………………………J.
(RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)
NEW DELHI,
JULY 2, 2014.
-----------------------
|Period |Year |Month |Days |
|5.3.1985-20.6.1986 |1 |3 |15 |
|15.1.1987-22.9.1988 |1 |8 |7 |
|26.4.1990-22.9.1990 | |4 |26 |
|Total |3 |6 |18 |
