Bhagirath & Ors Vs. Delhi
Administration [1985] INSC 90 (16 April 1985)
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.
((CJ) MISRA RANGNATH DESAI, D.A.
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S.
(J)
CITATION: 1985 AIR 1050 1985 SCR (3) 743 1985
SCC (2) 580 1985 SCALE (1)719
CITATOR INFO: E 1991 SC1792 (4,9,12,17)
ACT:
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Section 428.
Persons sentenced to imprisonment for life-whether entitled to set- Off their
under trial period of detention against their sentence.
Persons sentenced to life
Imprisonment-whether sentenced to imprisonment for term` Interpretation of
Statutes:
Marginal note of Section-Use of in
interpretation Sentencing Punishment no longer retributory but reformative.
Words & Phrases:
Term-Meaning of-Criminal Procedure Code 1973
Section 428.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant filed a writ petition in the
High Court , contending that his case be referred for the order of the State
Administration under Paragraph 516- of the Punjab Jail Manual , on the , ground
that though sentenced to life imprisonment , he had under gone a period of
detention in Jail amounting to 14 years together with the remission earned by
him and that he should be released.
The aforesaid petition was rejected by a
Single Judge following the decision of this Court in Kartar Singh v.
State of Haryana , [1983] 1 SCR 445 on the
ground. That in computing: the period of 14 years , the period spent by the
convict in the jail as an undertrial prisoner cannot be taken into account
because section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which allowed such a
set-off applied only when an accused had sentenced to imprisonment for a term ,
' and that the sentence of life imprisonment was not an 'imprisonment for a
term'.
In the companion writ petition , the petitioner
contended that the remis- 744 sions earned by him as a convict must be taken
into account while computing the period of 14 years under paragraph 516-B of
the Punjab Jail Manual , and that in any case , ht ought to be given the
benefit of sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because , his
case merits a favorable consideration by the State Administration.
Allowing the Appeal and Writ Petition , ^
HELD: 1. The period of detention undergone by
the two accused as undertrial prisoners , shall be set-off against the sentence
of life imprisonment imposed upon them , subject to the provision contained in
section 433A and , provided that orders have been passed by the appropriate
authority under section 432 or section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[753C-D]
2. The fact that the term of life is of an
uncertain duration does not justify the conclusion that the sentence of
imprisonment for life. is not for a term . [752C] 3 There can possibly be no
dispute that a person sentenced to life imprisonment is sentenced to
imprisonment. The term to which such person has been sentenced b the term of
his life- Therefore a person who is sentenced to life imprisonment , is
sentenced to imprisonment for a term. [752C]
4. Under section 432 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure , the appropriate Government has the power to remit the whole or any
part of the punishment to which a person has been sentenced. Under section 433
of the Code , the appropriate Government has the power to commute the sentence
of imprisonment for life to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen year
or to fine. The question of setting off the period of detention undergone by an
accused as an undertrial prisoner against the sentence of life imprisonment can
arise only if an order is passed by the appropriate authority under-r section
432 or section 433 of the Code. In the absence of such an order passed
generally or specially , and apart from the provisions if any , of the relevant
Jail Manual , imprisonment for life would mean imprisonment for remainder of
life. [750D-F]
5. The assumption that the word term' implies
a concept of ascertainability or conveys a sense of certainty is contrary to
the letter of the law , as found in section 428. Even the marginal note to the
section does not bear out that assumption. It rather belies it. [748F]
6. Marginal notes are now legislative and not
editorial exercises. The marginal note of section 428 shows that the object of
the Legislature in enacting the particular provision was to provide that 'the
period of detention undergone by the accused' should be 'set off against the
sentence of imprisonment' imposed upon him. There are no words of limitation
either in the section or in its marginal note which would justify restricting
the plain and natural meaning of 745 the word 'term' so as to comprehend only
sentences which are imposed for a fixed or ascertainable period. [748F-G]
7. To say that a sentence of life
imprisonment imposed upon an accused is a sentence for the term of his life
does offence neither to grammar nor to the common understanding of the word
'term . To say otherwise would offend not only against the language of the
statute but against the spirit of the law , that is to say , the object with
which the law was passed. A large number of cases in which the accused suffer
long undertrial detentions are cases punishable with imprisonment for life.
Usually , those who are liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for life are not
enlarged on bail.
To deny the benefit of section 428 to them is
to withdraw the application of a benevolent provision from a large majority of
cases in which such benefit would be needed and justified. [748H; 748A-B]
8. Equity sustains law and the twain must
meet. They cannot run in parallel streams. Equitable considerations must have
an important place in the construction of beneficient provisions , particularly
in the field of criminal law. To exclude such considerations is to denude law s
benevolence of its true and lasting content. [752F]
9. Graver the crime , longer the sentences ,
greater the need for set-offs and remissions. Punishments are no longer
retributory. They are reformative. [752F] Kartar Singh v. State of Haryana
[1983] 1 SCR 445 over- ruled , Sukhlal Hansda v. State of West Bengal Writ
Petitions (Crl.) 1128-29 of 1982 , Gopal Vinayak Godse v. The Slate of
Maharashtra [l961] 3 SCR 440 , 444 & Maru Ram v. Union of India [1981] I
SCR 1196 referred.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 754
Of 1983 From the judgment and Order dated 5-7-1983 of the High ('court of Delhi
in Crl. Misc. (Main) No. 499 of 1983.
AND Writ Petition (Cd.) No. 1265 of 1982.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India) Mukul Mudgal for the Appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 754 of 1983 R.K. Jain
, R.P. Singh , Suman Kapoor , D.S.Mehra and Miss 746 Sangeeta Aggarwal for the
Petitioner in W.P. No. 1266 of 1982.
M.S. Gujarat , G.D. Gupta , R.N. Poodar and
Miss Halida khatun , for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHANDRACHUD , C.J. We have before us an appeal and a writ petition , which are
filed by two persons sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence of murder.
They contend that they are entitled to the benefit of Section 428 Or the Code
of Criminal Procedure , that is to say , that the period of detention undergone
by them prior to their conviction as undertrial prisoners must be off against
the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon them.
The appellant , Bhagirath , filed a petition
in the Delhi High Court asking that his case be referred for the-e orders of
the Delhi Administration under paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual since
, though sentenced to life imprisonment , ha had undergone a period of
detention in Jail amounting to 14 years together with the remissions earned by
him.A learned Single Judge of the High Court rejected that petition on the
ground that , in computing the period of 14 years , the period sent by the
convict in the jail as an under trial prisoner cannot be taken into account
because , section 428 of the Code which allows such a set off applies only when
an accused has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term' , and the sentence of
life imprisonment is not an imprisonment `for a term'. In coming to the
conclusion that section 428 has no application to cases which an accused is
sentenced to life imprisonment , the learned Judge relied upon a judgment of
this Court in Kartar Singh v. State of Haryana.(') The Petitioner in the
companion writ petition , Rakesh Kaushik , has a somewhat similar grievance , though
he has needlessly introduced extraneous matters in his pleadings. One of his
contentions is that the remissions earned by him as a convict must be taken (1)
[1983] S.C.R. 445 747 into account while computing the period of 14 years under
para- graph 516-B of the Punjab jail Manual. He contends also , that in any
case , he ought to be given the benefit of sections 432 and 433 of the Code
because , his case merits a favourable consideration by the Delhi
Administration. In support of his case , he relies upon an order dated March 3
, 1982 passed by this Court in Sukhlal Hansda v. State of West Bengal. (1)
According to the counter-affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary (Home) of the
Delhi Administration , the petitioner's case cannot be considered for petitioner's
release because he has not yet undergone 14 years of imprisonment , inclusive
of remissions earned by him.
First , We would prefer to interpret section
428 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure on its own terms , that is , divorced
from considerations arising under the Punjab Jail Manual or any other Jail
Manual. The Provisions of Jail Manuals vary from State to State. Therefore ,
questions arising under those Manuals cannot be mixed up with questions arising
under the Code , which is the law of the land. Section 428 of the Code reads
thus:
"Period of detention undergone by the
undergone by the accused to be set off against the sentence of imprisonment , -
Where an accused person has , on conviction , been sentenced to imprisonment
for a term , not being imprisonment in default of payment of fine , the period
of detention , if any undergone by him during the investigation , inquiry or
trial of the same case and before the date of such conviction , Shall be set
off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him on such conviction , and
the liability of such person to undergo imprisonment on such conviction shall
be restricted to the reminder , if any , of the trem of imprisonment imposed on
him." The neat and , we believe , the simple question for decision is
whether imprisonment for life is imprisonment "for a terms". The
reason why it is urged that imprisonment for life is not imprisonment for a
term is that the latter expression comprehends only imprisonments for a fixed ,
certain and ascertainable period of time like six months , two years , five
years and so on. Since the sentence (1) Writ Petitions (Cod.) Nos. 1128-26 of
1982 748 of life imprisonment , as held by this Court in Gopal Vinayak Godse v.
The Stale of Maharashtra , (1) is a sentence for life and nothing less and
since , the term of life is itself Uncertain , the sentence of life
imprisonment is for an uncertain term , that is to say , that it is not
imprisonment for a term So goes the argument. So does it go but it fails to
carry much conviction. Life is uncertain. In more ways than one. Who knows what
good may come tomorrow and how many good tomorrows there are still to go ? But
, philosophical digressions apart , especially optimistic , the fact that the
term of life is of an uncertain duration does not justify the conclusion that
the sentence of imprisonment for life is not for a term. The relevant question
and , the only one , to ask under section 428 is: Has this person been
sentenced to imprisonment for a term ? For the sake of convenience , the
question may be split into two parts. One , has this person been sentenced to
imprisonment ? And , two , is the imprisonment to which he has been sentenced
an imprisonment for a term ? There can possibly be no dispute that a person
sentenced to life imprisonment is sentenced to imprisonment. Then , what is the
term to which he is sentenced ? The obvious answer to that question is that
term to which he has been sentenced is the term of his life.
Therefore , a person who is sentenced to life
imprisonment is sentenced to imprisonment for term.
We see but little warrant for qualifying the
word 'term' by the adjective 'fixed' which is not to be round in section 428.
The assumption that the word 'term' implies a concept of ascertainability or
conveys a sence of certainty ii contrary to the letter of the laws , as we find
it in that section Even the marginal note to the section does not bear out that
assumption. It rather belies it. And , marginal notes are now legislative and
not editorial exercises. The marginal note of section 428 shows that the object
of the Legislature in enacting the particular provision was to provide that
'the period of detention undergone by the accused' should 'be set off against
the sentence of imprisonment' imposed upon him. There are no words of
limitation either in the section or in its marginal note which would justify
restricting the plain and natural meaning of the word 'term so as to comprehend
only sentences which are imposed for a fixed or ascertainable period.
To say that a sentence of life imprisonment
imposed upon an (1) [1961] 3 S.C.R. 440 , 444.
749 accused is a sentence for the term of his
life does offence neither to grammar nor to the common understanding of the
word 'term'. To say otherwise offend not only against the language of the
statute but against the spirit of the law , that is to say , the object with
which the law was passed.A large number of cases in which the accused suffer
long undertrial detentions are cases punishable with imprisonment for life.
Usually' those who are liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for life are not
enlarged on bail. To deny the benefit of section 428 to them is to withdraw the
application of a benevolent provision from a large majority of cases in which
such benefit would be needed and justified.
Arguments and counter arguments were advanced
before us on the basis of provisions contained in sections 53 , 53A(4)(a) and
(b) , 57 , 65 and 511 of the Penal Code. The provision contained in section 57
that imprisonment foF life has to be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for
twenty years is for the purpose of calculating fractions of terms of
punishment. We cannot press that provision into service for a wider purpose.
Nor , indeed , can we draw sustenance to our conclusion from the provision
contained in section 51 I to the effect that whoever attempts to commit an
offense punishable with imprisonment for life shall be punished with
imprisonment "for a term which may extend to one half of the imprisonment
for life". The argument of Shri Mukul Mudgal that if one-half of life
imprisonment is "a term" exhypothesi , life imprisonment would be
"a term of imprisonment" is attractive but slender. But , equally ,
we do not consider that anything contained in the rest of the sections above
noted , militates against the view which we have taken.
The modalities for working out the provision
contained in section 428 in cases of persons sentenced to imprisonment for life
should not present any serious difficulty in practice. In the first place , by
reason of section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure where a sentence of
imprisonment for life is imposed on a person for an offence for which death is
one of the punishments provided by law , or where a sentence of death imposed
on a person has been commuted under section 433 to one of imprisonment for
life;
such person cannot be released from prison
unless he has served at least fourteen years of imprisonment. The only point to
note is 750 that while upholding the constitutional validity of section 433A ,
it was held by this Court in Maru Ram v. Union of India , (1) that the section
is prospective in operation , with the result that it cannot apply to cases
which were decided by the trial Cout before December 18 , 1978 , being the date
on which the section came into force mind is the one arising out of the
judgment of this Court in Gopal Vinayak Godsease. It was held by a Constitution
Bench in that case that a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment is bound to
serve the a remainder of his life in prison unless the sentence imposed upon
him is commuted or remitted by the appropriate authority. It was further held
that since such a sentence could not be equated with any fixed term , the Rules
framed under the Prison Act entitled such a person to earn remissions but that
, such remissions were to be taken into account only towards the end of the
term. Under section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , the appropriate
Government has the power to remit the whole or any part of the punishment to
which a person has been sentenced. Under section 433 of the Code , the
appropriate Government has the power , inter alia , to commute the sentence of
imprisonment for life to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years
to fine. The question of setting off the period of detention undergone by an
accused as an undertrial prisoner against the sentence of life imprisonment can
arise only if an order is passed by the appropriate authority under section 432
or section 433 of the Code. In the absence of such order , passed generally or
specially , and apart from the provisions , if any of the relevant Jail Maunal
, imprisonment for life would mean , according to the rule in Gopal Vinayak
Godse , imprisonment for the remainder of life.
The two cases before us were referred to a
larger Bench because of the doubt entertained as regards the correctness of the
decision in Kartar Singh , especially because of the apparently conflicting
view taken by another Bench of this Court in Sukhlal Hansda v. State of West
Bengal. Both of those decisions were rendered by a three-judge Bench. In Kartar
Singh , persons who were sentenced to life imprisonment challenged an order
passed (1) [l981] 1 S.C.R , 1196.
751 by the Government of Haryana , denying to
them the benefit of the period of undertrial detention under section 428 of the
Code. It was held by this Court that the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure
Code make a clear distinction between 'imprisonment for life' and 'imprisonment
for a term' and , in fact , the two expressions are used in contradistinction
with each other in one and the same section , the former meaning imprisonment
for the remainder of the natural life of the convict and the latter meaning
imprisonment for a definite or fixed period. The Court proceeded to hold that
an order of remission passed by the appropriate authority merely affects the
execution of the sentence passed by the Court , without interfering with the
sentence passed or recorded by the Court. Therefore , section 428 which opens with
the words "where an accused person has , on conviction , been sentenced to
imprisonment for a term" , would come into play in cases where
'imprisonment for a term' is awarded on conviction by a court and not where the
sentence imposed upon an accused becomes a sentence for a term by reason of the
remission granted by the appropriate authority. Finally , according to the
Court , 'the question is not whether the beneficent provision should be
extended to life convicts on a priori reasoning or equitable consideration but
whether on true construction , the section comprises life convicts within its
purview". The Court found support to its view in the objects and reasons
for introducing section 428 in the Code , as set out in the Report of the Joint
Committee.
We have considered with great care the
reasoning upon which the decision in Kartar Singh proceeds. With respect , we
are unable to agree with the decision. We have already discussed why
'imprisonment for life is imprisonment for a term , within the meaning of
section 428. We would like to add that we find it difficult to agree that the
expressions 'imprisonment for life' and imprisonment for a term' are used
either in the Penal Code or in the Criminal Procedure Code in
contra-distinction with each other. Sections 304 , 305 , 307 and 391 of the
penal Code undoubtedly provide that persons quilty of the respective offences
shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for a term
not exceeding a certain number of years. But , that is the only manner in which
the Legislature could have expressed its intention that persons who are guilty
of those offences shall be punished with either of the sentences mentioned in
the respective sections. The 752 circumstance on which the learned judges have placed
reliance in Kartar Singh , do not afford any evidence , intrinsic or otherwise'
of the use of the two expressions in contra-distinction with each other. Two or
more expressions are often used in the same section in order to exhaust the
alternatives which are available to the Legislature. That does not mean that
there is , necessarily , an antithesis between those expressions.
The reasoning in Kartar Singh that an order
of remission does not interfere with the sentence recorded by the court but
merely affects the execution of the sentence , stands answered by the
interpretation which we have put upon the language of section 428 that persons
sentenced to imprisonment for life are sentenced to imprisonment for a term. It
is not because of remission that a sentence of life imprisonment becomes an
imprisonment for a term.
We have also already answered the last of the
reasons given in Kartar Singh that the question is not whether the beneficent
provision contained in section 428 should be extended to life convicts on
equitable considerations. We enter a most respectful caveat. Equity sustains
law and the twain must meet. They cannot run in parallel streams. Equitable
considerations must have an important place in the construction of beneficent
provisions , particularly in the field of criminal law. To exclude such
considerations is to denude law's benevolence Or its true and lasting content.
Lastly , the view expressed by the Joint Committee in its Report does not yield
to the inference that the "mischief sought to be remedied has no relevance
where gravity of offence requires the imposition of imprisonment for
life". As we have indicated earlier , graver the crime , longer the
sentence and , longer the sentence , greater the need for set-offs and remissions.
Punishments are no longer retributory. They
are reformative.
The order passed by this Court in Sukhlal
Hansda related to the cases of 24 prisoners who were sentenced to life
imprisonment. Most of those prisoners had undergone imprisonment for a period which
, after taking account the remissions earned by them , exceeded fourteen years.
It was held by this Court that , for the purpose of considering whether the
cases of those prisoners should be examined for premature release under the
relevant provisions of the West Bengal Jail Manual , there was no reason why
the period of 753 imprisonment undergone by them as undertrial prisoners should
not be taken into account. The Court directed that the cases of the prisoners
should be considered by the State Government , both for the purpose of setting
off the period of detention undergone by them as undertrial prisoners and for
taking into account the remissions earned by them. The order passed by the
Court does not discuss the point which arises before us though , the
observations made therein are consistent more with the view which we have taken
than with the view taken in Kartar Singh.
For these reasons , we allow the appeal and
the writ petition and direct that , the period of detention undergone by the
two accused before us as undertrial prisoners , shall be set off against the
sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon them , subject to the provision
contained in section 433A and , provided that order have been passed by the
appropriate authority under section 432 or section 433 of the Code of Criminal
procedure.
N.V.K. Petion and Appeal allowed.
Back
