Judgment

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J.- The petitioner in this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution had been found guilty of the offence of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC by the Sessions Court and had been undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life. His conviction and sentence was affirmed by the High Court and later confirmed by this Court. The petitioner alleges that he has already undergone more than 21 years imprisonment at the time of filing of the writ petition and contended that his h further detention is illegal and that he is liable to be set at liberty forthwith for which he seeks a writ of habeas corpus and prays for payment of compensation for his alleged illegal detention beyond the period of fourteen years.

2. According to the petitioner, the length of the duration of imprisonment for life is equivalent to 20 years imprisonment and that too subject to further remission admissible under law. He contends that on completion of this term he was liable to be released under Rule 751(c) of the West Bengal Jail Code. He relies on the Explanation to Section 61 of the West Bengal Correctional Services Act, 1992 (West Bengal Act 32 of 1992) where-under imprisonment for life is equated to a term of 20 years imprisonment.

3. Another contention raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner was sentenced to "imprisonment for life", a punishment introduced by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 26 of 1955 as one form of punishment distinct from the punishment of rigorous or simple imprisonment shown in clause (4) of Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioner, the executive authorities have converted it into "rigorous imprisonment for life" and this according to the petitioner was not warranted by the provisions of the law and the same can be done only by commutation of the punishment under Section 55 of the Indian Penal Code to rigorous imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years. In other words, the argument of the petitioner is that imprisonment for life shall not be treated as rigorous imprisonment and it would only be a simple imprisonment till a proper commutation order is passed under Section 55 IPC.

4. The petitioner has also raised another contention that imprisonment for life has not been made legally executable in jail either under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 or 1973 or any other law and the officer in charge of jail can be the person at the place envisaged under Section 32 of the Prisoners Act (Act 3 of 1900) just for the intermediate custody and that he is bound to deliver the person over to the appropriate authority and custody for the purpose of removal to the places for carrying out or executing the sentence and in this behalf reliance was placed on the forms of warrant of commitment prescribed under Sections 383 and 386 CrPC, 1898.

5. Lastly, the petitioner contended that in any case the petitioner is liable to be released from detention on completion of twenty years imprisonment.

6. In order to deal with the contentions advanced by the petitioner, it is necessary to look into the provisions of Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code. Clause "secondly" of Section 53 relating to "transportation" was deleted and in its place "imprisonment for life" was introduced by Act 26 of 1955 with effect from 1-1-1956. The amended Section 53 reads as follows:

"53. Punishments.- The punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of this Code are,-

First.-Death;

Secondly.-Imprisonment for life;

Fourthly.- Imprisonment, which is of two descriptions, namely-

(i) Rigorous, that is, with hard labour; (ii) Simple;

Fifthly.-Forfeiture of property; Sixthly.-Fine."

7. Section 53 provides for distinct categories of punishments to which offenders are liable to be punished for the offences enumerated in IPC. The punishment of "transportation" was deleted and was substituted by "imprisonment for life". Prior to the commencement of Act 26 of 1955, all prisoners