Life imprisonment qualifies as imprisonment for a term under the Code of Criminal Procedure, allowing set-off for undertrial detention periods.

Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, CJI. :- We have before us an appeal and a writ petition, which are filed by two persons sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence of murder. They contend that they are entitled to the benefit of S. 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that is to say, that the period of detention undergone by them prior to their conviction as under trial prisoners must be set off against the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon them.

2. The appellant, Bhagirath, filed a petition in the Delhi High Court asking that his case be referred for the orders of the Delhi Administration under paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual since, though sentenced to life imprisonment, he 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 spent 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 imprisonment for a term, and the sentence of life imprisonment is not an imprisonment for a term. In coming, to the conclusion that S. 428 has no application to cases in 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) 1 SCR 445 :

3. 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 paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual. He contends also, that in any case, he, ought to be given the benefit of Sections 432 and 433 of the Code because, his case merits a favourable consideration by the Delhi Administration. In support of his case, he relies upon an order dated March 3, 1983 passed by this Court in Sukhlal Hansda v. State of West Bengal Writ Petitions (Crl.) 1128-29 of 1982. According to the counter-affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary (Home) of the Delhi Administration, the petitioners case cannot be considered for premature release because he has not yet undergone 14 years of imprisonment, inclusive of remissions earned by him.

4. First, we would prefer to interpret section 429 of the Criminal P.C. on its own terms, that is, divorced from considerations arising under the Punjab Jail Manual or any other Jail Manual. The provisions of Jail Manuals very from State to State. Therefore, questions arising under those Manuals cannot be mixed up with questions arising under the Code, which is the law of the land. Section 428 of the Code roads thus :

"Period of detention undergone by the accused to be set off against the sentence of imprisonment :

Where an accused person has, on conviction been sentenced to imprisonment for a, term, not being imprisonment in default of payment of fine, the period of detention, if any, undergone by him during the investigation, inquiry or trial of the same case and before the date of such conviction, shall be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him or such conviction, and the liability of such person to undergo imprisonment on such conviction shall be restricted to the remainder, if any, of the term of imprisonment imposed on him"

5. The neat and, we believe, the simple question for decision is whether imprisonment for life is imprisonment "for a term". The reason why it is urged that imprisonment for life is not imprisonment for a term is that the latter expression comprehends only imprisonments for a fixed, certain and ascertainable period of time like six months, two yews, five years and so on. Since the sentence of fife imprisonment, as held by this Court in Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra (1961)