IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Solely on the basis of completion of a term in jail serving imprisonment and remissions earned under the relevant rules or law will not entitle an automatic release, but the appropriate Government must pass a separate order remitting the un-expired portion of the sentence.
2. The views of the witnesses who had been examined in the case or the persons in the locality cannot determine whether the petitioner life convict would be a danger if prematurely released because the persons in the locality and the witnesses may still live in the past and their memories are being relied upon without reference to the present and the report of the jail authorities to the effect that the petitioner has reformed himself to a large extent.
3. By reason of one s age one cannot say whether the convict has still potentiality of committing the crime or not, but it depends on his attitude to matters, which is not being taken note of by the Government.

Headnote:(i) Life convict-Premature release-Sentence for life means a sentence for entire life-Solely on basis of completion of term in jail serving imprisonment and remission earned under relevant rules or law will not entitle an automatic release-Appropriate Government must pass a separate order remitting unexpired portion of sentence-Definition of imprisonment for life to be equivalent to period of 20 years imprisonment in Section 61(1) of West Bengal Correctional Service Act, 1992 would not be of any help to life convict in absence of order of Government remitting sentence.
       Though under the relevant rules a sentence for imprisonment for life is equated with the definite period of 20 years, there is no indefeasible right of such prisoner to be unconditionally released on the expiry of such particular term, including remissions and that is only for the purpose of working out the remissions that the said sentence is equated with definite period and not for any other purpose. In view of this legal position explained by this Court it may not help the petitioner even on the construction placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Section 61(1) of the West Bengal Correctional Services Act XXXII of 1992 with reference to explanation thereto that for the purpose of calculation of the total period of imprisonment under this Section the period of imprisonment for life shall be taken to be equivalent to the period of imprisonment for 20 years. Therefore, solely on the basis of completion of a term in jail serving imprisonment and remissions earned under the relevant rules or law will not entitle an automatic release, but the appropriate Government must pass a separate order remitting the un-expired portion of the sentence. (Para 4)
       (ii) Life convict-Premature release-Relevant consideration/criteria-Jail authorities report in favour of petitioner convict-Review committee constituted by Government recommending rejection of claim for premature release-Reason that police report revealed two witnesses who had disposed before trial Court and people of locality apprehensive of acute breach of peace, petitioner being 43 years of age has not lost potential of community crime and incident relating to crime was sequal of political feud affecting society at large-Reasons palpably irrelevant or devoid of substance-Views of witnesses in trial and persons in locality cannot determine whether petitioner would be a danger-One s age cannot be basis to determine potentiality to commit crime-Order of government quashed-Government directed to reconsider and decide case afresh. (Paras 5, 6 & 7)
       Held : The views of the witnesses who had been examined in the case or the persons in the locality cannot determine whether the petitioner life convict would be a danger if prematurely released because the persons in the locality and the witnesses may still live in the past and their memories are being relied upon without reference to the present and the report of the jail authorities to the effect that the petitioner has reformed himself to a large extent. By reason of one s age one cannot say whether the convict has still potentiality of committing the crime or not, but it depends on his attitude to matters, which is not being taken note of by the Government. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-This writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution seeks for the release of the petitioner who is undergoing imprisonment for life after having been convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The claim of the petitioner is that he has undergone the following period of actual sentence and earned remissions :-

YEAR MONTHS DAYS

(a) From 25.6.1982 To 17 10 6 1.5.2000 including under the trial period confine- ment

(b) Remissions earned or 5 8 29 Govt. Remissions granted upto 31.12.1999

2. The petitioner also claims that under Section 61(1) of the West Bengal Correctional Services Act XXXII of 1992, which on Presidential assent being given came to force with effect from April 14, 2000, he is entitled to be released inasmuch as he had served the sentence and earned remissions as detailed above and was entitled to be released as on September 27, 1996. The details are set forth hereunder :-

YEAR MONTHS DAYS

(i) Length of life impri- 20 0 0 sonment under the definition of punish- ment vide explana- tion is :

(ii) Deduct the period 5 8 29 of remission earned or granted under Section 58 or Section 59

14 3 1

(iii) Deduct the period 0 2 8 of set off under Section 428, Cr.P.C. 1973

(iv) Total amount of 14 0 24 actual sentence the petitioner herein was liable to undergo

DAY MONTHS YEAR

(v) Sentence of the 3 9 1982 petitioner started from the date of his sentence on 3.9.1982

(iv) Add the amount 24 0 14 actual sentence to be undergone from item (iii) above

(vii) Date of Release 27 9 1996 on which the Superin- that is, tendent of jail was 27th Sep- liable to release the tember, petitioner Rule 771 1996 now under Section 61(1) read with Rule 571 in chapter XIII West Bengal Jail Code.

3. After examining the legal position as to the nature of the powers arising under Section 432 Cr.P.C. read with Article 161 of the Constitution and the relevant rules relating to remission of sentences, it is observed in the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh1, as under :

"(1) That a sentence of imprisonment for life does not automatically expire at the end of 20 years including the remissions, because the Administrative Rules framed under the various Jail Manuals or under the Prison Act cannot

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 1437

Cases Referred (3)