The main legal point established in the judgment is that the amended provision of section 433-A of the Criminal Procedure Code is not applicable retrospectively to cases where the convict was acquitted before the amendment came into force but convicted in appeal after the amendment.

Headnote:
Interpretation of Law - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 433, Section 433-A - The court discussed the application of section 433 and section 433-A of the Criminal Procedure Code in the case of a petitioner convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The court held that the amended provision of section 433-A is not applicable retrospectively to a case where the convict was acquitted before the amendment came into force but convicted in appeal after the amendment. The court emphasized that the appellate conviction must relate back to the date of the trial Court's verdict and substitute it. Therefore, the petitioner, who was acquitted before the amendment came into force and subsequently convicted in appeal, was entitled to the benefit of the remission system prevailing prior to section 433-A.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition for his release from imprisonment, contending that he had undergone the sentence in accordance with the law. The petitioner was acquitted by the Sessions Court in a murder trial, but the High Court convicted him under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. The petitioner had already undergone a period of imprisonment longer than he was liable to be in custody due to the wrong interpretation of the law.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was entitled to be released forthwith from custody as he had already undergone a longer period of imprisonment than he was liable to under the law. The court also directed the State to pay costs to the petitioner for the laxity on the part of the State.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation and application of section 433 and section 433-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the entitlement of the petitioner to be released from custody after suffering a longer period of imprisonment than he was liable to under the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the amended provision of section 433-A is not applicable retrospectively to cases where the convict was acquitted before the amendment came into force but convicted in appeal after the amendment. The appellate conviction must relate back to the date of the trial Court's verdict and substitute it.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to release the petitioner forthwith from custody and set him at liberty. The State was also directed to pay costs to the petitioner for the laxity on the part of the State.

JUDGMENT - S.S. PARKAR, J.:--Rule.

By consent Rule is made returnable forthwith. Shri Jadhav, learned A.P.P. waives service on behalf of the respondents.

Heard both sides at length.

2. This is an instance of citizen suffering longer period of imprisonment due to the wrong interpretation of the provisions of law or ignoring or being in ignorance of the law laid down by the Supreme Court which is binding on all courts under Article 141 of the Constitution and is enforceable through out the territory of India under Article 142 of the Constitution.

3. The petitioner has filed this petition for his release from imprisonment, which he is undergoing for his conviction under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, as he had long back undergone that sentence in accordance with law. The petitioner was acquitted by the Sessions Court in a murder trial in November, 1997. The order of acquittal was challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 490 of 1978 by the State. The High Court allowed the said appeal against the order of acquittal by the judgment and order dated 16-10-1981 and convicted the petitioner under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. The said conviction order was challenged by the petitioner in Supreme Court by filing Appeal No. 4 of 1982 which came to be dismissed at the final hearing stage on 4-2-1993. During the pendency of the appeal in the Supreme Court, the petitioner was released on bail on 21-1-1982 and again was taken into custody on 5-2-1993 after the confirmation of the conviction by the Supreme Court.

4. The petitioner had filed writ petition in this Court being Criminal Writ Petition No. 209 of 2000 for his release on the ground that he had undergone the sentence in accordance with section 433 of Criminal Procedure Code and the Government Circular dated 16-11-1978, addressed to the Inspector General of Prisons, State of Maharashtra. Under the said Circular, the life imprisonment was considered to be of 14 years including remissions. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner in that petition that the case of the petitioner was not governed by the amended provision of section 433-A of Criminal Procedure Code, under which the life convict has to undergo actual imprisonment of 14 years exclusive of remissions. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor made a statement that the State Government will consider the case of the petitioner within time bound frame and, therefore, this Court by the order dated 11-8-2000 disposed of the petition by directing the respondent-State to consider and decide the petitioner's case at the earliest where he had undergone the sentence as per law and in case he had completed imprisonment he will be released forthwith. Pursuant to the said order, the case of the petitioner was considered and communication was addressed to the petitioner on 1-11-2000 informing him that his case was governed by amended section 433-A of Criminal Procedure Code, under which he had to undergo actual imprisonment of 14 years. Copy of the said communication is annexed at Exh. 'C' to this petition. Dissatisfied with the said decision of the State, the petitioner has filed this present petition in this Court, contending that his case would be governed by provision of section 433 of Criminal Procedure Code, which as per the Government Circular, referred to above, would mean that the convict has to undergo 14 years of imprisonment inclusive of remissions which he earns.

5. Reply affidavit dated 25-2-2002 is filed by Shivdas Motiram Deore, Jailor, Grade II, Aurangabad Central Jail. In the said affidavit, Government has reiterated its stand that provision of amended section 433-A of Criminal Procedure Code is applicable. However, Exh. R. 1 annexed to the said petition gives the particulars of period actually undergone by the petitioner convict and the period of remissions earned by him during his imprisonment. As per the said Annexure by 31-1-2001, the petitioner had actually undergone a per

Click Here to Read the rest of this document