PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.S.Aggarwal, J.
Lakhvinder Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 9452M of 1995,
Decided On : MAY 19, 1997
TRANSFER OF PRISONERS ACT, 1950 - REMISSION OF SENTENCE - APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT - TRANSFER OF PRISONER FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER - POWER TO GRANT REMISSION - ARTICLE 161 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - EXECUTIVE POWER OF THE STATE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Lakhminder Singh, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore. He was later transferred to Central Jail, Gurdaspur, Punjab, under the Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950. The petitioner sought premature release and special remissions granted to prisoners in Punjab, but the State of Punjab denied his request, arguing that he was not entitled to such benefits because he was convicted by a court in Karnataka.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appropriate government for granting remissions to the petitioner was the Government of Karnataka, where he was convicted, and not the Government of Punjab, where he was transferred. The court found that the special remissions granted by the Governor of Punjab were limited to prisoners convicted by courts in Punjab and that the petitioner did not qualify for such remissions.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the remissions granted to prisoners in Punjab. 2. Whether the Government of Punjab had the power to grant remissions to the petitioner, who was convicted by a court in Karnataka.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 161 of the Constitution of India to hold that the appropriate government for granting remissions to a prisoner is the government of the state where the prisoner was convicted. 2. The court held that the executive power of a state, including the power to grant remissions, extends only to matters with respect to which the legislature of the state has the power to make laws. Since the Punjab Legislature did not have the power to make laws for a person convicted by a court in Karnataka, the Government of Punjab did not have the power to grant remissions to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was entitled to the remissions granted by the Government of Karnataka but not by the Government of Punjab.
1. Lakhminder Singh-petitioner was tried and held guilty of the offence punishable under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code at Bangalore. It was alleged that the offence was committed on 22-6-1987. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore held the petitioner guilty of the said offence on 5-1-1989. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The petitioner applied for his transfer to the State of Punjab. On 3-4-1992 the Inspector General of Prisons sent memo to Inspector General of Prisons, Karnataka. By virtue of the same consent was given for transfer of the convict on reciprocal basis. The said consent reads :-
"Reference on the subject letter No. 5169-GI/G-6, dated 25-9-1991 on the subject noted above. 2. This department has already conveyed concurrence vide letter under reference the transfer of convict cited as subject to the State on reciprocal basis. Accordingly you are requested to make necessary arrangements for his transfer to this State at the earliest as the parents of the prisoner are pressing hard for the same."
In pursuance of the said consent the petitioner was transferred to Central Jail, Gurdaspur in accordance with Trnasfer of Prisoners Act, 1950.
2 By virtue of the present petition, the petitioner seeks that he has been deprived of the remission that are granted by the State of Punjab to its prisoners in pursuance of the remissions granted under Art. 161 of the Constitution. In the alternative he contends that he should be given the remissions that are awarded to the prisoners of Karnataka and that the petitioner was deprived of the remissions granted to the prisoners of Punjab and that he is being discriminated.
3. In the reply filed by the State of Punjab, the petition has been contested. Preliminary objections have been taken that the petitioner has no right to claim premature release. The petitioner has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and, therefore, he has no right to claim premature release. In accordance with Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner is required to undergo at least 14 years sentence before he can claim premature release. So far as remissions granted to the prisoners in Punjab are concerned, the defence offered is that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of special remissions because under the instructions special remissions are granted only to those prisoners who have been convicted by the Courts of criminal jurisdiction in the State of Punjab. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The instructions issued by the Governor of Punjab are not applicable to the petitioner. It is the State of Karnataka which is the appropriate authority. On merits similar pleas were offered. It was pointed out that on the date the reply is filed the petitioner had undergone 8 years and 20 days of actual sentence. This excludes the under-trial period. He had earned 1 year, 11 months and 12 days remissions. The premature release of the petitioner can only be considered by the State of Karnataka. It is not disputed that the petitioner had been released on parole for a period of four weeks in pursuance of the direction given by this Court but it is insisted that the petitioner is not entitled to the special remissions claimed by him.
4. Before proceeding further reference can well be made to the orders passed with respect to the special remissions by the Government of Punjab. On 27-1-1994 the department of Home Affairs had issued the orders copy of which is Annexure P-4. The opening words of the same read :-
"In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to remit the portion of unexpired sentence of imprisonment for life in the case of those who fulfil the conditions stated below as on 16-1-1994, the date on which the annual State level sports meet was held at Central
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.