LexSADHU SINGH RODA S/O BUTA SINGH ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SADHU SINGH RODA S/O BUTA SINGH ETC.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
. January 25, 1984
[V.D. TULZAPURKAR, R.S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI
MUKHARJI JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973-Secs. 433 and 433A.
741
Punjab Jail Manual-Para 516-B-Interpretatlon of-Para 516-B Is
nat a statutory rule but contains executive instructions which can be amended by
subsequent executive instructions issued by State Gcwernment.
Paragraph S 16-B of the Punjab Jail Manual provided Inter alla that
after a person sentenced to 1:re imprisonment had undergone detention for
the period specified in that paragraph together with remission earned, his
case sb~uld be submitted to the State Government for consideration of his
pre-mature release. In 1971 the State Government issued instructions laying
down certain minimum period of actual detention to be undergone by a person
sentenced tO life imprisonment before his case for pre.mature release could
be considered by the State Government.
In 1976 the State Government.
issued further inHructions that cases of life convicts whose death sentence
had heed commuted to life imprisonment should be considered' for pre-
mature release only after completion of 14 years of actual imprisonment.
The petitioners, who claimed to have satisfied t le requirements of para
516-B and thus become entitled to be cansidered for pre-mature release
under that paragraph, alleged that following the 1971 and 1976 instruc-
tions the jail authorities were not submitting their cases to the State
Government for consideration of their· pre-mature release.
The petitioners
contended that para 516-B was a statutory rule and the subsCquent executive
instructions issued in 1971 and 1976 could not amend or alter the statutory
rule thereby adversely affecting their rights under Para 516-B.
Dismissing the five petitions and a l1owing two petitions,
HELD : A sentence of imprisonment for life is a sentence for the
n maioder of the natural life of the convict and there is no question releasing
such a convict earlier ill the absence ·of a formal order of commutation
passed by the State Gove1nment either under sec. 55, IPC. or sec. 433 (b)
. of Cr. P.C. 1973 and that even the Remission Rules, though statutory,
cannot over-ride the statutory prOvisions contained in the Penal Code.
Admittedly, in the case of none of the petitioners before the Court bas any
order of commutation been passed b:Y the State Government und;;:r either
of tbe said provisioQs. [74,E-F]
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
742
~UPREMB COURT REPORTS
(1984) 2 s.c.&.
Pandit Klshori Lal, AIR 1945 PC. 64; Gopal Godse [1961] 3 S·C.R.
440; Mam Ram, (1981] I S.C.R .. 1196 and Kartar Singh (1982] 3 S.C.R.
l; referred to.
Para 516-B of the manual itself contained executive instructions and
had no force of a statutory rule.
If that be so it would always be open to
the State Government from time to time to alter or amend or even withdraw
such executiVe instructions by issuing fresh instructions.
But once fresh
instructions for processing the cases for lifers for pre-mature release are
issued these must be uniformly and invariably applied to all cases of lifers
so as to avoid the Charge of discrimia:Hion under Art. 14 of the Constitu-
tion. [748E-F]
In Naranjan Singh's case (Which decision is subject matter of challenge
in criminal appeal arising from leave being granted in SLP (Crl.) No. 499
of 1983) the fact that the State Government had issued the 1971 instruction
which substituted Para 516-B of the manual was not properly placed before
the High Court and in the absence of such proper material the High Court
took the view that the convict's ca!>e for pre-mature release was required
to be considered in the light of the provisions of Para 516-B.
The view of
the High Court cannot obviously 1'o accepted. [7480-H]
The contention of tbe petitioners that the State had been erroneously
making a distinction between cases of prisoners who had been sentenced to
death but whose sentences, oo mercy petitions, had been commuted to Jife
imprisonment ·and prisoners who· had been straigbtawiiy sentenced to Jife
imprisonment in the matter of consideration of their cases for pre-mature
reiease, must fail in view of the admitted position that cases of prisoriers
who have been sentenced to death but whose sentence en mercy petitions
has been commuted to life-imprisonment {who constitute a distiOct class)
will now be governed by the 197.6 InstruExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.