Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Yrs. months days ____________________________________________________________

(a) actual rigorous imprisonment after conviction. 11 5 10

(b) Jail remissions 2 3 6

(c) Govt. remissions 8 6 1 _____________________________ Total: 22 2 17 ________________________________ Admittedly, neither his sentence has been remitted fully nor commuted for imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years either under s. 55 I.P.C. or s. 433(b) Cr. P.C. 1973 by the appropriate Government, with the result that he is liable to serve his sentence until the remainder of his life in prison under the ruling of this Court in Gopal Godse's(1) case. However, on the basis of the aforesaid particulars, which are not disputed, the petitioner's case is that he has positively undergone more than 14 years of sentence including remissions and since through the Officer-in-Charge of jail the Government got executed his sentence in jail custody in the form of rigorous imprisonment, that is by subjecting him to hard labour and also by awarding him remissions the Government must be deemed to have commuted his sentence to 14 years either under s. 55 I.P.C. or s. 433(b) Cr. P.C. 1973, notwithstanding that no formal order in that behalf was made by the State Government and as such his continued detention in jail is illegal and he is entitled to be released forthwith.

On the other hand counsel for the respondents seriously disputed that either the old sentence of 'transportation for life' or the new sentence of 'imprisonment for life' substituted by the Amending Act 26 of 1955 was or is executable only by way of banishment or exile of the convicts to overseas penal settlements or that the Officers- in-Charge of jails could not or cannot confine them in the jails within the country for executing or carrying out the sentences imposed upon them. Counsel emphatically denied that either the old sentence of 'transportation for life' or the newly substituted sentence of 'imprisonment for life' (either awarded originally or by way of commutation of death sentence) had not been or has not been made legally executable in jails in the country and contended that there was and is ample legal authority warranting the execution or carrying out of such sentences in the jails through the Officers-in-Charge thereof and in that behalf reliance was placed on ss. 383-384 of the old Cr. P.C. 1898 as well as ss. 418-419 of the present Cr. P.C. 1973 read with ss.3, 7, 15, 16, 29 and 32 of the Prisoners Act No. 3 of 1900 and certain executive or administrative orders or directions issued from time to time by State Governments; in particular reference was made to Paragraphs 719 and 726A of the Punjab Jail Munual whereunder transportation prisoners (who would include life convicts) could be made to undergo their sentences in certain jails in the country-such jails being constituted the 'place' for their confinement under s. 32 of Act 3 of 1900, and counsel urged that accordingly the petitioner herein has been undergoing his sentence of life imprisonment in the Central Jail, Bhatinda. Further, on the aspect of the nature of the punishment counsel contended that having regard to the insertion of a new section, s. 53- A in the Indian Penal Code by the Amending Act 26 of 1955, which is in the nature of an Interpretation Clause it would be clear that Parliament intended that a sentence of 'imprisonment for life' should be equivalent to rigorous imprisonment for life. It was pointed out that on both the aspects touching the punishment of 'imprisonment for life' (namely, the place of its executability as well as its nature) the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner have been concluded by two well-known judicial pronouncements, one of the Privy Council in Pandit Kishori Lal's (1) case and the other of this Court in Gopal Godse's case (supra) and the position in law on both the aspects having been settled by those decisions the recommendation made by the Law Commission in its 39th Report as well as 42nd report will be of no avail to the petitioner and will have to be regarded as having been made only for the purpose of removal of doubts and clarifying or declaring the existing legal position. If, therefore, the sentence of 'imprisonment for life' is nothing but 'rigorous imprisonment for life' and can be and is being legally executed or carried out in one of the jails in the country in the case of the petitioner there will be no question of releasing him forthwith simply because he has served 14 years of rigorous imprisonment (inclusive of remissions) in the absence of an order of commutation passed by the State Government either under s. 55 of the I.P.C. or s. 433 (b) of the Cr. P.C. 1973. The petitioner is, therefore not entitled to the relief sought by him.

That this is how s. 53 A (2) of I.P.C. was construed by this Court is clear from the decision in Gopal Godse's case (supra). Facts of that case shortly stated were these: Gopal Godse was sentenced to transportation for life by a Judge of the Special Court, Red Fort, Delhi on 10th February, 1949. After undergoing 20 years rigorous imprisonment together with the remissions, he challenged the legality of his continued detention, claiming that he had served his sentence and was therefore, entitled to be released. One of the questions posed by the Court for its determination was:

"Whether the petitioner (Gopal Godse) who was sentenced to transportation for life (and whose sentence had not been commuted under s. 55 of the I.P.C. or under s. 402 (1), Cr. P.C. could be dealt legally as if he were a person sentenced to rigorous imprisonment"? After approving the Privy Council in decision Pandit Kishori Lal's case (supra) which was based on s. 58, I.P.C. and other statutory provisions, this Court answered the question in the affirmative solely basing its conclusion on the provisions contained in s. 53 A (2)-a provision added by the Amending Act 26 of 1955 with effect from 1.1.1956. After setting out the provisions the court observed thus: