LIFE CONVICT BENGAL @ KHOKA @ PRASANTA SEN versus B.K. SRIVASTAVA & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 3 S.C.R. 392 · Decided: 13-02-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013) 3 S.C.R. 392 
A 
LIFE CONVICT BENGAL @ KHOKA @ PRASANTA SEN 
v. 
B.K. SRIVASTAVA & ORS. 
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 363 OF 2011 
IN 
B 
(Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 279 of 2004) 
FEBRUARY 13, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND 
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] 
c 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.57 - Life imprisonment - Meaning 
and effect of -Remission - Entitlement to - Held: Once a person 
is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment unless 
imprisonment for life is commuted by the competent authority, 
he has to undergo imprisonment for the whole of his life - S.57 
0 
/PC does not, in any way, limit the punishment of 
imprisonment for life to a term of 20 years - In absence of 
subsequent order of remission by the competent Government 
either based on s.57 /PC or any other provision of CrPC, the 
life convict cannot be released - Neither s.57 /PC nor 
E Explanation to s.61 of the WB. Act lays down that a life 
imprisonment prisoner has to be released after completion 
of 20 years - 20 years mentioned in Explanation to s. 61 of 
the WB. Act is only for the purpose of ordering remission -
On facts, if the State Government taking into consideration 
F various aspects refused to grant remission of the whole period 
then the petitioner cannot take advantage of the above 
Explanation and even s. 57 /PC and seek for pre-mature 
release -Further the question of remission of the entire 
sentence or a part of it lies within the exclusive domain of the 
appropriate Government uls.401 CrPC and neither s.57 /PC 
G nor any rules or local Acts (in the case on hand WB. Act) can 
stultify the effect of the sentence of life imprisonment given 
by the Court under the /PC - West Bengal Correctional 
Services Act, 1992 - ss. 2(c) and 61, Explanation - Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.432. 
H 
392 
LIFE CONVICT BENGAL @ KHOKA @ PRASANTA 393 
SEN v. B.K. SRIVASTAVA 
. 
Contempt of Court - Life convict filed writ of Habeas A 
Corpus for his immediate release stating that he had already 
undergone full sentence of 20 years with remission - Supreme 
Court directed the respondents- State of West Bengal to 
consider the claim and proceed to conclude the sentence for 
the purpose of consideration of remission - Contempt petition B 
filed by the life convict contending that inspite of the said order 
of the Supreme Court and the WB. Act, the respondents had 
not granted remission and had not released him - Held: In 
West Bengal, there is a duly constituted Sentence Review 
Board for consideration of applications for premature release c 
made by life convicts - On facts, the State Sentence Review 
Board, after careful consideration of all the aspects, had 
declined to recommend the petitioner-life convict for his 
premature release - State Government accepted the 
recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board and 0 
communicated its decision to the petitioner - There was no 
violation of the order passed by the Supreme Court - No merit 
in the contempt petition - West Bengal Correctional Services 
Act, 1992 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.432. 
The petitioner - a life convict was convicted under E 
Section 302/34 IPC. He filed a writ of Habeas Corpus for 
his immediate release stating that he had already 
undergone full sentence of 20 years with remission. The 
Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition directing the 
respondents- State1,of West Bengal to consider the claim F 
of the petitioner and proceed to conclude the sentence 
for the purpose of consideration of remission as per the 
applicable Statute/Policy. 
The petitioner filed the instant contempt petition G 
contending that inspite of the said order of the Supreme 
Court and the West Bengal Corr.ectional Services Act, 
1992, the respondents had not granted remission and 
had not released him. He contended that the respondents 
- the State of West Bengal and its officers had disobeyed H 
394 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 3 S.C.R. 
A the order passed by the Supreme Court by not complying 
with the same. The petitioner contended that as per order 
of the Supreme Court, the respondents ought to have 
released the petitioner on completion of a period of 20 
years. 
B 
Per. contra, the respondents- State Government 
highlighted that on going into the period of custody, other 
particulars and the provisions of the West Bengal Act, it 
had rejected the prayer of the petitioner for his premature 
release, hence, there was no violation of the order passed 
C by the Supreme Court. The respondents cont
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.