Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1985 (4) TMI 334

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l since, though sentenced to life imprisonment, ha had undergone a period of detention in Jail amounting to 14 years together with the remissions earned by him. A learned Single Judge of the High Court rejected that petition on the ground that, in computing the period of 14 years, the period sent by the convict in the jail as an under trial prisoner cannot be taken into account because, section 428 of the Code which allows such a set off applies only when an accused has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term', and the sentence of life imprisonment is not an imprisonment `for a term'. In coming to the conclusion that section 428 has no application to cases which an accused is sentenced to life imprisonment, the learned Judge relied upon a judgment of this Court in Kartar Singh v. State of Haryana, [1983] S.C.R. 445. The Petitioner in the companion writ petition, Rakesh Kaushik, has a somewhat similar grievance, though he has needlessly introduced extraneous matters in his pleadings. One of his contentions is that the remissions earned by him as a convict must be taken into account while computing the period of 14 years under para- graph 516-B of the Punjab jail Manual. He .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n term, that is to say, that it is not imprisonment for a term. So goes the argument. So does it go but it fails to carry much conviction. Life is uncertain. In more ways than one. Who knows what good may come tomorrow and how many good tomorrows there are still to go ? But, philosophical digressions apart, especially optimistic, the fact that the term of life is of an uncertain duration does not justify the conclusion that the sentence of imprisonment for life is not for a term. The relevant question and, the only one, to ask under section 428 is: Has this person been sentenced to imprisonment for a term ? For the sake of convenience, the question may be split into two parts. One, has this person been sentenced to imprisonment ? And, two, is the imprisonment to which he has been sentenced an imprisonment for a term ? There can possibly be no dispute that a person sentenced to life imprisonment is sentenced to imprisonment. Then, what is the term to which he is sentenced ? The obvious answer to that question is that term to which he has been sentenced is the term of his life. Therefore, a person who is sentenced to life imprisonment is sentenced to imprisonment for term. We s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... life shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one half of the imprisonment for life . The argument of Shri Mukul Mudgal that if one-half of life imprisonment is a term exhypothesi, life imprisonment would be a term of imprisonment is attractive but slender. But, equally, we do not consider that anything contained in the rest of the sections above noted, militates against the view which we have taken. The modalities for working out the provision contained in section 428 in cases of persons sentenced to imprisonment for life should not present any serious difficulty in practice. In the first place, by reason of section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law, or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under section 433 to one of imprisonment for life; such person cannot be released from prison unless he has served at least fourteen years of imprisonment. The only point to note is that while upholding the constitutional validity of section 433A, it was held by this Court in Maru Ram v. Union .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent for life' and 'imprisonment for a term' and, in fact, the two expressions are used in contradistinction with each other in one and the same section, the former meaning imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of the convict and the latter meaning imprisonment for a definite or fixed period. The Court proceeded to hold that an order of remission passed by the appropriate authority merely affects the execution of the sentence passed by the Court, without interfering with the sentence passed or recorded by the Court. Therefore, section 428 which opens with the words where an accused person has, on conviction, been sentenced to imprisonment for a term , would come into play in cases where 'imprisonment for a term' is awarded on conviction by a court and not where the sentence imposed upon an accused becomes a sentence for a term by reason of the remission granted by the appropriate authority. Finally, according to the Court, 'the question is not whether the beneficent provision should be extended to life convicts on a priori reasoning or equitable consideration but whether on true construction, the section comprises life convicts within its purvie .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... have an important place in the construction of beneficent provisions, particularly in the field of criminal law. To exclude such considerations is to denude law's benevolence Or its true and lasting content. Lastly, the view expressed by the Joint Committee in its Report does not yield to the inference that the mischief sought to be remedied has no relevance where gravity of offence requires the imposition of imprisonment for life . As we have indicated earlier, graver the crime, longer the sentence and, longer the sentence, greater the need for set-offs and remissions. Punishments are no longer retributory. They are reformative. The order passed by this Court in Sukhlal Hansda related to the cases of 24 prisoners who were sentenced to life imprisonment. Most of those prisoners had undergone imprisonment for a period which, after taking account the remissions earned by them, exceeded fourteen years. It was held by this Court that, for the purpose of considering whether the cases of those prisoners should be examined for premature release under the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Jail Manual, there was no reason why the period of imprisonment undergone by them as unde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates