2005 Supreme(SC) 1196

2005(6) Supreme 461
Supreme Court of India
(Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India)
K.G. Balakrishnan & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ.
Md. Munna —Petitioner
versus
Union of India and Ors. —Respondents
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 45 of 1998
With
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 50 of 2003
Decided on 16-9-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : B.S. Malik, Sr. Advocate, A. Dashrath, R.P. Dhaka, C.S. Ashri, Mrs. Santosh Singh, S. Deswal, A. Deshmukh, Advocates.
For the Respondents : P.P. Malhotra, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. Radha Rangaswamy, Ms. Binu Tamta, Vineet Malhotra, P. Parmeshwaran, Avijit Bhattacharjee, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Mrs. Sushma Suri, Tara Chandra Sharma, Sanjeev Kr. Singh, Advocates.

Important point
Life imprisonment could not be treated as 14 years or 20 years without there being a formal remission by appropriate Govt..

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 53, 55 and 57—Prisoner’s Act, 1900—Section 32—Sentence of imprisonment for life—Prison authorities are bound to keep person who is sentenced to imprisonment for life in jail—With deletion of punishment of transportation itself, provision of Section 32 of Prison Act regarding temporary custody of prisoner had no relevance—Sentence of imprisonment for life was substituted for “transportation” —“Imprisonment for life” is to be treated as “rigorous imprisonment for life”. (Paras 9 to 12)

       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 53 and 57—West Bengal Correctional Services Act, 1992—Section 61—Petitioner was convicted u/s 302 IPC and was sentenced to “imprisonment for life”—Writ petition for “Habeas Corpus” to set petitioner at liberty forthwith on plea that petitioner had already undergone more than 21 years imprisonment—“Imprisonment for life” is to be treated as “rigorous imprisonment for life”—No provision either in Indian Penal Code or in Code of Criminal Procedure where by life imprisonment could be treated as fourteen years or twenty years without there being formal remission by appropriate Govt.—Life imprisonment is not equivalent to imprisonment for 14 years or 20 years—Petitioner was not entitled to be released so long as there was no order of remission passed by appropriate Govt. in his favour.

       Held : The counsel contended that by virtue of Rule 751(C) of the West Bengal Jail Code, the petitioner was liable to be released from jail on completion of twenty years. He also relied on the Explanation to Section 61 of the West Bengal Correctional Services Act 1992 (W.B. Act No. XXXII of 1992) wherein the imprisonment for life is equated to a term of twenty years simple imprisonment for the purpose of remission. But there is no provision either in the Indian Penal Code or in the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby life imprisonment could be treated as fourteen years or twenty years without there being a formal remission by the appropriate government. Section 57 of Indian Penal Code reads as follows:

       “57 Fractions of terms of punishment.—In calculating fractions of terms of punishment, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years.”

       The above Section is applicable for the purpose of remission when the matter is considered by the government under the appropriate provisions. This very plea was placed before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Kishori Lal vs. Emperor AIR (32) 1945 PC 64 and the Privy Council held as under:

       “Assuming that the sentence is to be regarded as one of 20 years, and subject to remission for good conduct, he had not earned remission sufficient to entitle him to discharge at the time of his application and it was therefore rightly dismissed but, in saying this, their Lordships are not to be taken as meaning that a life sentence must and in all cases be treated as one of not more than 20 years or that the convict is necessarily entitled to remission.”

       The Prisons’ Rules are made under the Prisons Act and the Prisons Act by itself does not confer any authority or power to commute or remit sentence. It only provides for that regulation of the prisons and for the terms of the prisoners confined therein. Therefore, the West Bengal Correctional Services Act or the West Bengal Jail Code do not confer any special right on the petitioner herein. In Godse’s case (supra), the Constitution Bench of this Court held that the sentence of imprisonment for life is not for any definite period and the imprisonment for life must, prima facie, be treated as imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convict person’s natural life. (Paras 15 to 18)

       We are bound by the above dicta laid down by the Constitution Bench and we hold that life imprisonment is not equivalent to imprisonment for fourteen years or for twenty years as contended by the petitioner. Thus, all the contentions raised by the petitioner fail and the petitioner is not entitled to be released on any of the grounds urged in the writ petition so long as there is no order of remission passed by the appropriate government in his favour. We make it clear that our decision need not be taken as expression of our view that petitioner is not entitled to any remission at all. The appropriate government would be at liberty to pass any appropriate order of remission in accordance with law. (Paras 19 and 20)