1985 (4) TMI 334 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Application of Paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual.
3. Consideration of remissions earned by convicts.
4. Application of Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. Validity of the decision in Kartar Singh v. State of Haryana.

Summary:

1. Interpretation of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The primary issue was whether the period of detention undergone by the appellants as undertrial prisoners should be set off against their life imprisonment sentences u/s 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court interpreted Section 428 on its own terms, separate from considerations under the Punjab Jail Manual. The court concluded that "imprisonment for life" is indeed "imprisonment for a term" within the meaning of Section 428. The term "term" does not imply a fixed or ascertainable period, and thus, life imprisonment qualifies as imprisonment for a term.

2. Application of Paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual:
The appellant Bhagirath sought the benefit of Paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual, arguing that his detention period, including remissions, amounted to 14 years. The court clarified that questions arising under Jail Manuals should not be mixed with those under the Code, as Jail Manuals vary from state to state. The court emphasized that Section 428 should be interpreted independently of the Jail Manual provisions.

3. Consideration of Remissions Earned by Convicts:
The petitioner Rakesh Kaushik contended that the remissions earned by him should be considered while computing the 14-year period under Paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual. The court noted that the appropriate authority must pass orders u/s 432 or 433 of the Code for the period of detention to be set off against the life imprisonment sentence. Without such orders, life imprisonment would mean imprisonment for the remainder of life, as per the rule in Gopal Vinayak Godse.

4. Application of Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
Rakesh Kaushik also argued for the benefit of Sections 432 and 433 of the Code, which allow for remission and commutation of sentences. The court reiterated that the appropriate authority must pass orders under these sections for the set-off to apply. The modalities for working out Section 428 in cases of life imprisonment should not present serious difficulties, provided the appropriate authority's orders are in place.

5. Validity of the Decision in Kartar Singh v. State of Haryana:
The court reviewed the decision in Kartar Singh, which held that "imprisonment for life" and "imprisonment for a term" are used in contradistinction. The court disagreed with this interpretation, stating that both expressions are not necessarily antithetical. The court emphasized that equitable considerations must play a role in interpreting beneficent provisions like Section 428. The court found the reasoning in Kartar Singh unconvincing and overruled it, aligning more with the observations in Sukhlal Hansda v. State of West Bengal.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and writ petition, directing that the period of detention undergone by the two accused as undertrial prisoners be set off against their life imprisonment sentences, subject to Section 433A and provided that orders are passed by the appropriate authority u/s 432 or 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petition and Appeal allowed.