SAT PAL @ SADHU versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

Citation: [1992] 3 S.C.R. 898 · Decided: 19-08-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SAT PAL @ SADHU 
)-
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 
AUGUST 19, 1992 
B 
[KULDIP SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: 
...... 
.. 
Sections 53-A, 55 and 302-lmprisonment for lif~ature of-whether 
c rigorious imprisonment-No formal order issued by appropriate Government 
commuting sentence under Section 55 /PC or Section 433 (b) of the Criminal 
Procedure Code for a term not exceeding 14 yearHVhether a life convict 
entitled to be released before 14 years of actual imprisonment. 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 : 
>----
D 
Sections 433 (b) and 433 (A)-1..,ife convict-Completing 13 112 years 
actual imprisonment and total period of 17 years imprisonment, including 
remission~Whether entitled to be released on the ground that Government 
must be deemed to have commuted his sentence to 14 years. 
E 
The petitioner, a life convict, having been sentenced to undergo 
}-
imprisonment for life, for th~ offence under Section 302 Indian Penal 
Code, filed a Writ Petition before this Court· challenging his continued 
detention in jail, and sought an order in the nature of habeas corpus, 
~
claiming . that he has served more than the maximum sentence of im-
F 
prisonment prescribed under law ·and should, therefore, be released. Ac-
cording to the petitioner, he had undergone about 13 years and six months 
-+ 
actual imprisonment and total period of imprisonment including remis· 
sions came to more than 17 years, and since he had undergone more than 
14 years, sentence including remissions, and the said sentence was got 
G 
executed in jail custody in the form of rigorous imprisonment, the Govern-
ment must be deemed to have commuted his sentence to 14 years, either 
under Section 55, Indian Penal Code, 1860 or Section 433 (b), Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973, notwithstanding that no formal order in that 
~-
behalf was made by the State Government and as such his continued 
detention in jail was illegal and he was entitled to be released forthwith. It 
H was contended that the law laid do\VD in Naib Singh v. State of Punjab & 
898 
·, 
-\. 
-{ 
SAT PAL v. STATE OF HARYANA 
899 
Ors., [1983) 2 SCC 4S4, needed reconsideration by a larger Bench. 
, A 
Dismissing the Writ Petition, this Court, 
HELD : 1.1. Admittedly, the petitioner's sentence has not been · 
remitted fully nor commuted for imprisonment for a term not exceeding ' 
14 years either under Section SS of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or under B 
Section 433 (b) of the Code of Criminal Pr~edure, 1973 by the ap-
propriate Government. Merely because the petitioner has undergone 
13 1/2 years actual rigorous imprisonment and a total period of 17 years 
imprisonment, including remissions, the Government cannot be deemed 
to have commuted his sentence, either under Section S5 of the Indian C 
Penal Code or Section 433 (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the 
absence of a specific order in this behalf by the appropriate Government, 
. the petitioner is not entitled to be released. [900E-F, 901E] 
1.2. It is ~e settled law that in view of Section 53-A, Indian Penal D 
Code, 1860, inserted by the Amending Act of 19S5, the sentence of im-
prisonment for life imposed on or after January 1, 1956 is executable in 
jails, that the nature of punishment required to be suffered under a 
sentence of 'imprisonment for life' is rigorous imprisonment; that since 
Section S3 A (2), transportation for a term has been equated to rigorous 
imprisonment for the same term, by necessary implication the sentence of E 
'transportation for life', now substituted by 'imprisonment for life' by 
Section S3-A(1) which is awardable for more serious, or more grave or 
more heinous crimes must mean rigorous imprisonment for life, that is 
to say, it cannot be anything but rigorous; and that it is not necessary 
that, while passing the sentence of imprisonment for life a criminal court F 
should clarify the exact nature of punishment intended to be inflicted on 
the accused. [902F-H, 903A-B, 901EJ 
Naib Singh v. State of Punjab and others, (1983) 2 SCC 4S4, relied on. 
Kishori Lal v. 'E:mperor, AIR 1945 PC 64 and Gopal Vinayak Godse v. G 
Stace of Maharashtra, {1'961) 3 SCR 440, referred to. 
1.3. The reasoning and conclusions given in Naib Singh's case are 
correct a-.d there is no justUlcation whatsoever to refer the polllts decided 
in tbt case to a larger_Belicb. [903F] 
H 
j 
900 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1992] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (CRL.) )-
No. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.