SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(P&H) 701

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
I.S.Tiwana, J.
Pavitar Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Writ Petition No. 244 of 1987,
Decided On : OCTOBER 27, 1987

Section 433-A, Cr.P.C., bars premature release for offenses punishable with death or where a death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment, even if the prisoner has served more than 10 years.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCING - PREMATURE RELEASE - LIFE IMPRISONMENT - POWER OF STATE GOVERNMENT - SECTION 433, 433-A, CR.P.C. - PUNJAB JAIL MANUAL, PARA. 516-B - INTERPRETATION - DISTINCTION BETWEEN REMISSION AND COMMUTATION OF SENTENCES - MINIMUM IMPRISONMENT OF 14 YEARS FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE WITH DEATH OR COMMUTED DEATH SENTENCES - NO POWER TO RELEASE BEFORE 14 YEARS.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302, IPC, on March 12, 1980, seeks premature release after serving more than ten years (actual plus remissions). He relies on Punjab Jail Manual, Para. 516-B, which allows consideration for premature release after 10 years for certain categories of prisoners, including those under 20 years of age at the time of the offense. The State Government opposes the petition, arguing that Section 433-A, Cr.P.C., introduced in 1978, bars premature release for offenses punishable with death or where a death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment unless the person has served at least 14 years.

Finding of the Court:

The court finds that the petitioner's argument equating remission with commutation of sentences is fallacious. Remission means a reduction in the quantum of punishment without changing its character, while commutation means changing a sentence to a less severe one. Section 433, Cr.P.C., empowers the State Government to commute sentences, not to order release. Section 433-A prescribes a minimum imprisonment of 14 years for offenses punishable with death or where a death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment, overriding the power to suspend or remit sentences under Section 432, Cr.P.C.

Issues: 1. Whether the power of the State Government to grant remission or commute sentences under Section 433, Cr.P.C., extends to premature release of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment. 2. Whether Section 433-A, Cr.P.C., bars premature release for offenses punishable with death or where a death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment, even if the prisoner has served more than 10 years.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court distinguishes between remission and commutation of sentences, holding that remission reduces the quantum of punishment without changing its character, while commutation changes a sentence to a less severe one. 2. The court interprets Section 433, Cr.P.C., as empowering the State Government to commute sentences, not to order release. 3. The court interprets Section 433-A, Cr.P.C., as prescribing a minimum imprisonment of 14 years for offenses punishable with death or where a death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment, overriding the power to suspend or remit sentences under Section 432, Cr.P.C.

Final Decision: The petition is dismissed. The court holds that the petitioner, who has not yet undergone 14 years of actual imprisonment, is not entitled to be released. The Superintendent of Central Jail, Patiala, is under no obligation to forward the petitioner's case to the State Government for premature release.

Judgment

1. The petitioner who claims to be less than 17 years of age on the date of crime on being sentenced to life imprisonment under S. 302, I.P.C. on Mar. 12, 1980, prays that since he has undergone more ten years imprisonment (actual plus remissions), the State authorities be directed to consider his case for premature release. This claim is made in the light of para. 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual the relevant part of which reads as under :-

"(b) The case of a female prisoner and of a male prisoner under 20 years of age at the time of commission of offence who is undergoing :-

(i) Imprisonment/s for life.

(iv) A single sentence of more than 20 years shall be submitted through the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, for the orders of the State Government when the prisoner has undergone a period of detention in jail amounting together with remission earned to 10 years."

Stand further is that the restriction imposed on the powers of the State Government qua remission and commutation of sentences in such cases vide S. 433-A as introduced by the Criminal Amendment Act, 1978, with effect from Dec. 18, 1978, does not affect power of the State Government to order premature release or at least the consideration for such a release under S. 433 (b) of the Cr.P.C. In other words, the submission is that the power of the State Government to commute a sentence of life under S. 433, Cr.P.C, is not affected by S. 433-A in any manner. The stand of the respondents while conceding that up to April 20,1987 the petitioner had undergone actual imprisonment of 6 years 7 months and 20 days and had also earned remission for 5 years 5 months and 2 days in accordance with the critieria laid down in the above noted manual for remission of sentences is that the provisions of the manual which are no more than Government instructions are of no avail to the convicts in the face of S.433-A, Cr.P.C, as the bar created by this section that a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment for life for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law cannot be released from prison unless he has served at least 14 years of imprisonment, is absolute. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter I find that the petitioner has no case.

2. The submission of Mr. B.S. Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner, as has been noticed above, appears to be the result of some confusion as the learned consel equates remission with commutation of sentences. He while conceding that S. 433-A is a complete bar to the remission of sentences as envisaged by S. 432, Cr.P.C, contends that this bar is not applicable to the power of the State Government to direct a premature release of the convict as envisaged by Cl. (b) of S. 433, Cr.P.C. As pointed out earlier, this submission is founded on the belief that remission of a sentence is the same thing as commutation of a sentence. This, however, on the face of it, is totally fallacious. The ordinary dictionary meaning of remission is to remit, relinquishment of a claim, pardon, forgiveness. On the other hand, to commute means to exchange or to exchange for a punishment less severe. This was the precise meaning attributed to these two words by the Law Commission in its 41st report while it was considering the revision of Ss. 401 and 402 of the earlier Cr.P.C. This is what the Commission observed in its report :-

" Remission originally meant a pardon under the great seal and release, but laterly it came to mean the same as a reduction of the quantum of the punishment, e.g. amount of the fine imposed or term of imprisonment awarded (without changing its character). Commutation means the alteration of a sentence of one kind into a sentence of a less severe kind as indicated in S. 402 of the Code."

It is thus patent that power of the State Government to grant remission or direct commutation of sentences in such cases is, not the same. Under S. 433, Cr.P.C, the appropriate Government can only commute a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top