A person sentenced to transportation for life shall be dealt with in the same manner as one sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for the same term. Remissions earned by a prisoner do not automatically entitle them to release. The power to remit a sentence is within the province of the appropriate Government.

Judgment

SUBBA RAO, J. : This is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution for an order in the nature of habeas corpus claiming that the petitioner has justly served his sentence and should, therefore, be released.

2. On February 10, 1949 the Judge, Special Court, Red Fort, Delhi, convicted the petitioner for offences under S. 3, read with S. 6, of the Explosive Substances Act, under S. 4(b) and S. 5 thereof, and for murder under S. 302, read with S. 109, of the Indian Penal Code; for the first two offences he was sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and five years rigorous imprisonment respectively and for the third offence to transportation for life and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. After conviction he was imprisoned in jails in the State of Punjab till May 19, 1950 and thereafter he was transferred to Nasik Road Central Prison in the State of Bombay (now Maharashtra). According to the petitioner, he has earned the following remissions upto September 30, 1960:

(a) Ordinary remission ... 836 days

(b) Special remission ... 206 days

(c) Physical training remission ... 113 days

(d) Literary remission ... 108 days

(e) Annual good conduct remission ... 250 days

(f) State remission ... 1380 days

The total of the remissions earned is 2893 days; but the State in its counter-affidavit states that the petitioner has earned upto the said date remission of 2963 days. The figure given by the State may be accepted as correct for the purpose of this petition. If the amount of remissions thus earned was added to the term of imprisonment the petitioner has actually served, the aggregate would exceed 20 years, and even if only the State remission was added to it, it would exceed 15 years. The petitioner, claiming that under the relevant provisions governing his imprisonment his further detention in jail would be illegal, prays that he might be set at liberty forthwith. The State, while conceding that he had earned remissions amounting to 2963 days, alleged in the counter-affidavit that the remissions earned did not entitle him to be released and that under the rules question of his release would be considered only after he completed 15 years actual imprisonment.

3. The petitioner argued his case in person. He rejected the help of an advocate as amicus curiae to assist him. In the circumstances, his argument was based more on emotional plane than on legal basis. But as the liberty of a citizen is involved, we have gone through the relevant provisions and considered the possible contentions that may be raised on the basis of the said provisions.

4. The first question that falls to be decided is whether, under the relevant statutory provisions, an accused, who was sentenced to transportation for life, could legally be imprisoned in one of the jails in India; and if so, what was the term for which he could be so imprisoned. We shall briefly notice the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code before it was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act XXVI of 1955. Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code set out six different punishments to which offenders were liable. The second of those punishments was transportation and the fourth was imprisonment which was of two descriptions, namely rigorous and simple. The word "transportation was not defined in the Indian Penal Code. but it was for life with two exceptions. Under S. 55 of the Indian Penal Code, "In every case in which sentence of transportation for life shall have been passed, the Provincial Government of the Province within which the offender shall have been sentenced may, without the consent of the offender, commute the punishment for imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding fourteen years . Under S. 58 thereof, in every case in which a sentence of transportation was passed, the offender, until he was transported, should be dealt with in the same manner as if sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and should be held to have be