LexGOPAL VINAYAK GODSE versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
Januayy Ia. 440 SUPR.EME COURT REPORTS [1961] GOP AL VIN AY AK GODSE THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS; (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, . K. SUBBA RAO, K. N. w ANOHOO and. J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) Habeas Corpus-Sentence-Transportation for life--:Imprisonc ment for life, if equivalent to any fixed term-Remissions, right to- When can be taken into consideration-Indian Penal Code, r86o (XLV of r86o), s. 53A-Code of Criminal Procedure, r898 (V of 1898), s. 401. The petitioner was convicted in r949 and sentenced to trans- portation for life. He earned remission of 2963 days and adding this to the term of imprisonment actually served by the petitioner the aggregate exceeded 20 years. The petitioner contended that his further detention in jail was illegal and prayed for being set at liberty: Held, that the petitioner had not yet acquired.any right to be released. A sentence of transportation for life could be undergone by a prisoner by way of rigorous imprisonment for life in a desig- nated prison in India. Section 53A of the Indian Penal Code, introduced by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, r955, provided that any person sentenced to transportation for life before the Amendment Act would be treated as sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. A prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment was bound to _ _serve the remainder of his life_ ill prison unless the sentence was commuted or remitte.d by the appropriate authority. Such a sentence could not be equated with any fixed term. The rules framed under the Prisons Act entitled such a prisoner to earn remissions but su-ch rernissions were to be taken into account only towards the end of the term. The ques- tion of remissions was exclusively within the province of the appropriate Government. In the present case though the Govern- ment had made certain remissions under s. 4or of the Code of Criminal_Procedure, it had not remitted the entire sentence. Pandit Kishori Lal v. King-Emperor, (r944) L.R. 72 I.A. r, referred to. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 305/1960. Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Petitioner in person. Fl. N.· Sanyal, Additional Solieilor-Gen~ral of India and R. Fl. Dhebar, for the respondents. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 441 1961. January 12. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SuBBA RAO, J.-This is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution for an order in the nature of habeas corpus claiming that the petitioner has justly served his sentence and should, therefore, be released. On February 10, 1949, the Judge, Special Court, Red Fort, Delhi, convicted the petitioner for offences under s. 3, read with s. 6, of the Explosive Substances Act, under s. 4(b) and s. 5 thereof, and for murder under s. 302, read with s. 109, of the Indian Penal Code; for the first two offences he was sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and five years' rigorous imprison- ment respectively and for the third offence to trans- portation for life and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. After conviction he was impri- soned in jails in the State of Punjab till May 19, 1950, and thereafter he was transferred to N asik Road Central Prison in the State of Bombay (now Maha- rashtra). According to the petitioner, he has earned the following remissions up to September 30, 1960: (a) Ordinary remission 836 days (b) Special re_mission 206 days (c) Physical training remission 113 days (d) Literary remission 108 days (e) Annual good conduct remission 250 days (f) Sta,te remission 1380 days The total of the remissions earned is 2,893 days; but the State in its counter-affidavit state that the peti- tioner has earned up to the said date remission of 2,963 days. The figure given by the State may be accepted as correct for the purpose of this petition. If the amount of remissions thus earned was added to the term of imprisonment the petitioner has actually served, the aggregate would exceed 20 years, and even if only the State remission was added to it, it would exceed 15 years. The petitioner, claiming that under the relevant provisions governing his imprisonment bis further detention in jail would be illegal, prays that he might be set at liberty forthwith. The State, while conceding that he had earned remissions 56 Gopal' V inayak Godse v. State bf l1f aharashtra Subba Rao]. I96I Gopal V in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.