BHAGIRATH & ORS versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION

Citation: [1985] 3 S.C.R. 743 · Decided: 16-04-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BHAG!RATH & ORS 
v. 
DELHI ADMINISTRATION 
April 16, 1985 
Code of Criminal Proccdurc1973. Section 428. 
Persons sentenced to itn1nison111cnt for life-Whether e11tit/ed to set.Off 
1heir under trial period of detentiun against their sentence. 
Person sente11,·ed to life [111prisonient-Whetlter sentenced to irnprison1ent 
fur 'ten11'. 
lnterpertation of Statutes: 
i\larginal note of Section-Use of in interpretation. 
P11nishn1ent 110 longer retributory but reforniative. 
Words & Phrases : 
'Te~m'-Meaning of-Crinfina/ Procedure Code 1973. Section 428. 
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court, contending that his 
case b~ referred for the order of lh·~ State Administration under Paragraph 516~ 
B of the Punjab Jail Manual,.on the ground that though sentenced t9 life ~impri­
sonment, he had unjergorn.: a p:riod of detention in Jail amouoting to 14 years 
together with the remission earned by him and that he should be released. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
The aforesaid petition was rejected by a Single Jodge following the deci .. 
sion of this Court in Kartar Singh v. State of Haryana, [1983], 1 SCR 445 on the 
ground, lhat in colnputing the period of 14 years, the period spent by the con-
G 
vict in the jail as an undertrial pri5oner cannot be taken into account because 
section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which allowed such a set-off 
applied only when ;in ac..;u5ed had b.!~n sentenced to 'imprisonment for a term/ 
and that th~ sentence of life imprisonment was not an 'imprisonment for a 
term·. 
Jn the companion writ petition, the petitioner contended that the remis-
:H. 
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
II 
'144 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985] 3 s.c.1t. 
sions earned by him as a convict must be takert into account while computing 
the period of 14 years under paragraph 516-8 of the Punjab Jail Manual, ani:) 
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 fav Jurable considera-
tion 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 
in1posed upon them, subject to the provi~ion contained in section 433A an~, 
provided tha! orders have b~en passed by the appropriate authority under se~­
tion 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 docs not 
justify the conclusion that the sentence of imprison1nent for life is not for a 
term. [752C] 
3. There can possibly be no dispute that a person sentenced to life im-
prisonment is sentenced to imprisonment. The term to which such person ha.s 
been sentenced is the term of his life. Therefore a person who is 1entenced t? 
life imprisonn1cnt, 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 appro'· 
priate Government has the power to commute the sentence of impriwnment 
for life to imprisonment for a term not exce~ding fourteen year.s or to fine. The 
question of setting off the period of detention und(:rgone by an accused as an 
undertrial pri~oner against the ~eatence of life imprisonn1ent can arise only if a1) 
order is passed by the appropriate authority und::r section 432 or section 433 of 
the Cod;;-. In the absence of such an order passed g!nerally or specially, and 
apart from the provisions if any, of the rdevant Jail Manual, imprisonment for 
life would mCan imprisonment for remainder of life. [7500-F] 
S. The assumption that the word •term' implies a concept of ascertain~ 
ability ~r 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 assun1ption. It rather belies it. [748F] 
6. Marginal notes are now legislative and not editorial cx:ercises. The 
marginal note of section 428 shows that the object of the Legislature in enacting 
the particular provision was to provide that 'the p:!riod of detention undergony 
by the accused' should be 'set o!T against the sentence of imprisonment' impo-
sed upon him. There are no words of limitation either in the section or in its 
marginal note which would justify restricting the plai

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.