Life imprisonment - period.

JUDGMENT :-

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) The petitioner – a life convict has filed this contempt petition against the respondents – the State of West Bengal and its officers for disobeying the order dated 24.11.2010 passed by this Court by not complying with the same within the prescribed period of eight weeks and failure to release him in accordance with the statute.

2) Brief facts:

(a) Prior to the above contempt petition, the petitioner filed a writ of Habeas Corpus being W.P. (Crl.) No. 279 of 2004 - for his immediate release in which it was stated that as per his calculation, he has undergone total sentence of imprisonment for a period of 22 years 2 months and 16 days including earned remission. According to him, even as per the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavits, he had undergone sentence for a period of 20 years 1 month and 17 days including remission and set off as on 31.12.2004. In other words, according to the petitioner, he has already undergone full sentence of 20 years with remission.

(b) By order dated 24.11.2010, this Court disposed of W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 20 and 279 of 2004 with the following directions:

“In the light of the decision of this Court in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Jagdish, 2010 (4) SCC 216 and considering the relief prayed in both the writ petitions, we dispose of the writ petitions by the following directions:

The State of West Bengal is directed to consider the claim of both the writ petitioners, life convicts and proceed to conclude the sentence for the purpose of consideration of remission as per the Statute/Policy applicable on the date of conviction and pass appropriate orders in terms of the above decision within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

The Writ Petitions are disposed of.

Sd/-

(P.Sathasivam,J.)

Sd/-

(Dr. B.S.ChauhanJ.)”

3) It is the claim of the petitioner that in spite of the said order of this Court dated 24.11.2010 and in view of the West Bengal Correctional Services Act, 1992 (West Bengal Act 32 of 1992) (hereinafter referred to as “the W.B.Act”), the respondents have not released him which necessitated him to file the above contempt petition.

4) Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, Mr. B.K. Srivastava, respondent No.1, Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Judicial Department has filed the counter affidavit highlighting their stand. In addition to the same, Dr. G.D. Gautama, respondent No.2, Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Home Department and Mr. Biplab Das - respondent No.3, Superintendent of the Presidency Correctional Home have filed counter affidavits reiterating their stand. In these counter affidavits, the State Government has highlighted that on going into the period of custody, other particulars and the provisions of the West Bengal Act, it rejected the prayer of the petitioner for his premature release, hence, according to them, there is no violation of order dated 24.11.2010 passed by this Court and prayed for dismissal of the present contempt petition.

5) We heard Mr. B.S. Malik, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondents.

Discussion:

6) In order to appreciate the claim of both the parties, it is useful to refer relevant provisions relating to release of prisoners under the W.B. Act. Section 2(c) of the W.B. Act defines “correctional home” which reads as under:

“2(c) “correctional home” means any place used permanently or temporarily under the orders of the State Government for detention of persons, whether under-trial or convicted, in accordance with any order for confinement under any law providing for preventive detention or any other law for the time being in force, but does not include a place for confinement of a person under the custody of the police;”

Chapter XVII of the said Act deals with remission, release and parole. Section 58 speaks about remission, Section 59 relates to special remission to examinees and S