LexNAIB SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D 770 .NAIBSINGH v. STATE OF PVNJAB & ORS. April 19, 1983 (V.D. TULZAPURKAR AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.) lndian Penal Code, 1860- s. 302 and 'Secondly' of s. 53 - Prisoner sentenced to 'imprisonment for life' not entitled to be set free after undergoing 14 J ears' rigorous imprisonment unless spec.ific order commuting sentence is passed under s. 55 I.P.C. ors. 433 (b), Cr. P.C., 1973. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 read with 'Secondly of'· 53 ands. 32 of Prisoners Act, 1900-Sentence of'imprisonmentfor life' is executabf, in jails within the country. \ Prisoners Act, 1900 - s. 32 - State Governtnents could appoint jails as 'places' for confinenient of prisoners sentenced to transportation for a term or for life. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898-s. 383-and Code of Criminal Proce~ durP, 1973-s. 418-These Provisions also empower Criminal Court to direct execu- .. E tion of sentence of 'imprisonment for life' in local jails. F G H Indian Penal Code, 1860-s. 302 and 'Secondly' oj s. 53 read with sub-ss. (1) and (2) of s. 53--A - •1mrisonment for life' means 'rigorous imprisonment for life' - Criminar Court not obliged to keep in vi.!w Provisions ofs. 60 J.P.C. whit~ passing sentence of 'imprisonment for life'. The petitioner had been originally sentenced to death under•· 302, l.P.C. but on a mercy petition preferred by him, the sentence had been commuted to 'imprisonment for life'. He had undergone actual rigorous imprisonment of .i,.. 11 years, S months and 10 days but, inclusive of remissions, the total imprison~ ment worked out to 22 years, 2 months and 17 da)'S. ' In support of the claim that the petitioner should be released forth\\'ith it was contended : (i) The detention 'in jail' of a person under 'in1prisonment for life' is unlawful because, after the enactment ofs.117 of the Cr. P.C. (Amendment) Act (26 of 1955), though persons who co1nmit murder have been n~ade liable to the newly substituted punishment of 'imprisonment for life' instead of the earlier sentence of ·'transportation for life' under 1. 302, I. P.C. read with •Secondly' of s. 53, T.P.C., this new sentence has not been made legally executable in jail; and like the sentence o~ 'transportation for life', it femains executable br way of banishment or exile to. the 'places' envisaged ' NAIB SINGH v. PUNJAB 771 under s. 32 of the Prisoners Act, 1900; (ii) The Amending Act (26 of 1955) did not change the nature of punishment formerly knOwn as 'transportation for life' by calling it 'imprisonment for life' and the latter, like the former, remains distinct from the punishment of •rigorous or simple imprisonment' enlisted at item 'Fourthly' ins. 53, I.P.C. and, it is only the punishment enlisted at item 'Fourthly' (which must mean •imprisonment for a term') that can be executed in jail either in rigorous manner or simple; (iii) Since the sentence of 'imprison- ment for life' can be executed only by the convict being 'removed to the place or places' required to be appointed under s. 32 of the Prisoners Act, 1900 and since no such 'place or places' have been appointed under the aforesaid provision by the State Government, the executing authorities are obliged by the present state of the law to 'execute' or •carry out' the said sentence in jail indirectly by way of commuting it for imprisonment of e-ither description for a tenn not exreeding 14 years under s. 55, 1.P.C. Qr s. 433 (b), Cr. P.C., 1973; and (iv) Although no such formal order of commutation had been passed in the case, the petitioner having been subjected to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 14 years, the State Government should be deemed to have passed such an order. Counsel for respondents contended: (I) that on both the aspects touching the punishment of 'imprisonment for life', namely, 'the place of its' executability as well as its nature, the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners have A B c been concluded by Pandit Kishori Lal's and Gopal Godse's cases; (ii) that since D the sentence of 'imprisonment for life' can be legally executed in jails within the country there is no question of releasing the petitioner forthwith, in the absence of an order of commutation passed by the s·tate Government either under s. 55, I.P.C. ors. 433 (b), Cr. P.C., 1973, simply because he has served 14 years' of rigorous imprisoD.ment. Dismissing the Petition, E HELD 1. Since the petitioner's sentence has not been commuted
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.