1. Convict sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 69, Army Act, 1950, for murder — dispute over eligibility for release based on total imprisonment including remissions. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1234
1999(8) Supreme 666
Supreme Court of India
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
K.T. Thomas and M.B. Shah, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Sadha Singh -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1099 of 1999
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7055 of 1999)
Decided on 25-10-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Ashok Bhan,, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondent :: Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate (A.C.)
For the State of Punjab :: Ms. Rupinder Kaur Wasu, Rajiv Dutta, Advocates.
Important point
Minimum of 14 years of actual imprisonment should be undergone by convict where a sentence of life is imposed for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law and remissions vest no right to release when sentence is for life imprisonment.
Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 433A-Remission or commutation in certain cases-Restriction on power of-Conviction for life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and Section 69 of Army Act-Convict unddergone actual imprisonment of 11 years 1 month and 29 days were pre trial custody-Earned 4 years of remission in jail-High Court holding convict entitled to count remission or earned in jail and dhe having spent 15 years and 8 months in jail orered immediate release-unjustified-Minimum of 14 years actual imprisonment a must-Remission vert no right to release sentence is for life-High court order quashed.
Held : In the present case, respondent was convicted under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950 for the offence of murder. It is true that Army act is a special act inter alia providing for investigation, trial and punishment for the offences mentioned therein by a special procedure. Section 177 empowers the Central Government to make rules in respect of prisons and prisoners. Sections 179 to 1900 provide for pardon, remissions and suspension of the sentence. There is no specific provision similar to Section 433A or contrary to it. Hence, Section 433A would operate in the field and a prisoner, who is undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life and is convicted 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(1) Cr. P.C. to imprisonment for life, has to serve at least 14 years of imprisonment excluding remissions earned in the jail. (Para 7)
Section 433A Cr. P.C., as in the Army Act there is no specific or contrary provision covering the same area. Section 433A, Cr. P.C. is a special pprovision applicable to all the convicts, who are undergoing imprisonment for life as provided thereunder. For such convicts, it puts an embargo for reduction of sentence below 14 years of actual imprisonment. (Para 8)
As the respondent has not completed 14 years of actual imprisonment, the order passed by the High Court is quashed and set-aside. (Para 9)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- military law
Table of Contents
2. Whether remissions earned in jail count toward the minimum 14-year actual imprisonment required under Section 433A, Cr.P.C., notwithstanding the special nature of the Army Act. (Para 4 , 8 )
3. Section 433A, Cr.P.C. is a specific provision that overrides special or local laws, mandating a minimum of 14 years of actual imprisonment for life convicts. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. Section 433A, Cr.P.C. applies to life convicts under the Army Act as the Act contains no specific or contrary provision regarding minimum actual imprisonment. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. High Court order for immediate release quashed and set aside; appeal allowed. (Para 9 , 10 )
6. Does Section 433A Cr.P.C. apply to convicts sentenced under the Army Act, 1950?
Yes. Because the Army Act contains no specific provision similar to or contrary to Section 433A Cr.P.C., Section 433A operates in the field, requiring life convicts to serve at least 14 years of actual imprisonment. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. Do remissions earned in jail count toward the 14-year minimum imprisonment required by Section 433A Cr.P.C.?
No. Section 433A Cr.P.C. mandates that a minimum of 14 years of actual imprisonment must be undergone; remissions do not vest a right to release when a sentence of life imprisonment is imposed. (Para 5 )
8. How does Section 433A Cr.P.C. interact with special or local laws under Section 5 of the Cr.P.C.?
Section 433A is a specific, explicit provision dealing with a narrow class of cases. Under Section 5 Cr.P.C., such specific provisions prevail over general special or local laws, including state remission schemes. (Para 6 )
Judgment
Shah, J.-Leave Granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 22.9.1998 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana aat Chanddigarh in Criminal writ Petition No. 1752 of 1997 filed by the respondent.
3. Respondent was awarded life imprisonment and dismissed from service by the General Court Martial after being tried for the offence under Section 3002 I.P.C. and under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950. He preferred a writ petition in the High Court for his immediate release from the imprisonment on the ground that he has undergone imprisonment exceeding 14 years. The High Court arrived at the conclusion that in view of the decision in Ajit Kumar etc. v. Union of India1 the respondent would be entitled to remissions earned in the jail and thereby respondent spent total periodd of 15 years 8 months and 29 days of imprisonment which obviously exceeded 14 years. The Court, therefore, directed immediate release of the respondent. That order is challenged by filing this appeal.
4. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the apppellant that respondent has not undergone actual imprisonment for 14 years. Before the High Court, it was admitted that respondent had spent 11 years and 1 month in actual custody, 1 year 7 months and 29 days in pre-trial custody and has earned 4 years remissiion in the jail. It is, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the High Court is, on the face of it, against the provision of Section 433A Cr.P.C. and its interpretation given by this Court in the case of Maru Ram v. Union of India & Anr.2.
5. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Maru Ram’s case (supra) held that Section 433A, Cr. PC over-rides all other laws which reduce or remit the term of life sentence and mandates that minimum of 14 years of actual imprisonment should be undergone by convict where a sentence of life is imposed for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law and remissions vest no right to release when sentence is for life imprisonment. The Court also reiterated that imprisonment for life lasts until the last breath and whatever be the length of remission earned, the prisoner can claim release only if the remaining sentence is remitted by the Government. The Court further negatived the contention that Section 5 of Criminal Procedure Code saves all remissions, short-sentencing schemes as speacial and local laws and, therefore, they must prevail over the Code including Section 433A. For that purpose, Section was referred to which is as under :
“Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force.”
6. The Court observedd that broadly speaking, the said Section consists of three components - (i) the Procedure Code generally governs matters covered by it; (ii) if a special or local law exists covering a certain area, such law will be saved and will prevail over the provisions in the Code (The short-sentencing measures and remission schemes promulgated by the various States are “special and local laws”)); and (iii) if there is a specific provisions to the contrary, then that will over-ride the special or local law. After considering the submissions and decisions cited by the parties, the Court held thus :-
“The Criminal Procedure Code is general Code. The remission rules are special laws but Section 433A is a specific, explicit, definite provision dealing with a particular situation or narrow class of cases, as distinguished from the general run of cases covered by Section 432 Cr. P.C. Section 433A picks out of a mass of imprisonment cases a specific class of life imprisonment cases and subjects it explicity to a particularised treatment. It follows that Section 433A applies in preference to any special or local law becaue Sectio
