MD. MUNNA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 233 · Decided: 16-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MD. MUNNA 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 16, 2005 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India-Article 32-Writ of Habeas Corpus-Criminal 
Procedure Code 1973-West Bengal Correctional Service Act, 1992-Sec. 61 
Expln.-West Bengal Jail Code-Rule 751 (c)-IPC-Sec. 55-Life C 
Imprisonment-Meaning of-Length of-Power of prison authorities to 
commute sentence and release of convict-Held, there is no provision in Indian 
Penal Code or Cr.PC whereby life imprisonment could be treated as fourteen 
years or twenty years without a formal remission by appropriate Government. 
Prisoners Act, 1900-Classification of convicts-Cr.P.C.-Sec. 53(4)- D 
/PC-Sec. 53A-Meaning of life imprisonment-Held, period of life 
imprisonment is to be considered as rigorous imprisonment. 
Prisoners Act, 1900-Sec. 32-Detention of convicts in jail-Validity-
Held, punishment of transportation having been deleted, there is no relevance 
of appointed places under the Act-Further held, the non-amending of provision E 
of the Act of 1900, along with introduction of Act 6 of 1995 does not make 
detention in jails illegal. 
Petitioner filed a Writ Petition claiming that he has already 
undergone more than 21 years imprisonment at the time of filing of the 
writ petition and his further detention is illegal and that he is liable to be F 
set at liberty forthwith and sought for payment of compensation for his 
alleged illegal detention beyond the period of fourteen years. Petitioner 
contended that the length of the duration of the imprisonment for life is 
equivalent to 20 years imprisonment and that too subject to further 
remission admissible under law, that on completion of this term he was G 
liable to be released under rule 75l(c) of the West Bengal Jail Code, that 
under Explanation to Section 61 of the West Bengal Correctional Services 
Act, 1992 (West Bengal Act XXXII of 1992) the imprisonment for life is 
equated to a term of 20 years imprisonment, that the petitioner was 
sentenced to 'imprisonment for life', a punishment introduced by the Code 
233 
II 
234 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 26 of 1955 as one form of 
punishment distinct from the punishment of rigorous or simple 
imprisonment shown in clause (4) of Section 53 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, that the imprisonment for life shall not be treated as rigorous 
imprisonment and it would only be a simple imprisonment till a proper 
B commutation order is passed under Section 55 of IPC, that imprisonment 
for life has not been made legally executable in jail either under the 
Criminal Procedure Code 1898 or 1973 or any other law and the officer 
in charge of jail can be the person at the place envisaged under Section 
32 of the Prisoner's Act (Act 3of1900) just for the intermediate custody 
and that he is bound to deliver the person over to the appropriate auth·ority 
C and custody for the purpose of removal to the places for carrying out or 
executing the sentence and that in any case the petitioner is liable to be 
released from detention on completion of twenty years imprisonment. 
Dismissing the Writ Petition, the Court 
D 
HELD: I. The imprisonment of the life convicts are being carried 
E 
out on the strength of the order passed by the court. The provisions 
contained in the Prisoners Act are only procedural in nature. The 
Preamble of the Act itself states that the Act is meant to consolidate the 
law relating to prisoners confined by order of a court and Section 32 of 
the Prisoners Act 1900 specifically says about the persons under sentence 
of transportation and when the punishment of transportation itself was 
deleted, the provisions of Section 32 regarding the temporary custody of 
the prisoners, there is no relevance for the appointed places within the 
State or outside the State for a person under sentence of transportation. 
The prison authorities are bound to keep the persons who are sentenced 
p to imprisonment for life in jails. Of course, some of the provisions in the 
Prisoners Act, 1900 were not suitably amended so as to be in conformity 
with the sentence of life imprisonment introduced by Act No. 26of1955. 
That does not make the detention illegal. (239-E-Hl 
Naib Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., (1983) 2 SWCC 454, referred 
G to. 
2. The sentence of imprisonment for life was substituted for 
"transportation". There are ample materials to show that a person who 
was sentenced
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.