LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus RATAN SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 552 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. RATAN SINGH & ORS. May 5, 1976 (A. C. GUPTA AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.] Code of c·rin1inal Procedu.re-Ss. 401 and 40-2-Convicted for impriMnn1e11t for life by one State-Priso_ner transferred to his native State-Appropriate Gorenunent which could remit sentence. The respondent was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by a court in the State· of Madhya Pradesh. At his request be was transferred to a jail in the State of Punjab, to which State he belonged. He applied to the Government of Punjab that under the Punjab Jail Manual he is entitled to be released since he had completed more than 20 years of imprisonment. The applicition was sent to the Government of Madhya Pradesh, which rejected it. In a writ petition filed by him the High Court of Ponjab and Haryana held that the State of Punjab was the appropriate authority to release him and directed the State of Punjab to consider the matter. In appeal to this Court, the State of Madhya Pradesh contended : (i) that since 1he sentence was of imprisonment for life, it would not expire automatically at the expiry of' 20' years including remissions; and (ii) that as the priooner was convicted by a court in the State of Madhya Pradesh the appropriate Govern- ment to exercise discretion under ss. 401 and 402 Cr.P.C. was the State of Madhya Pradesh and not the State of Punjab, Allowing the appealJ HELD : The High Court was in error in holding that the respondent was entitled to be released as of right on completing the tern1 of 20 years including remissions. [556C] Gopal Vinayak Godse v. 6tc<e of Maharashtra and Others, [1%1] 3 S.C.R. 440 and Pandit Kislzori Lal v. King E1nperor, L.R. 72 I.A. 1, followed. ( 1) A sentence of imprisonment for life does not automatically expire at the end of 20 years including remissions because the administrative rules framed under the various Jail Manuals or under the Prisons Act canoot supersede the· statutory provisions of the· Indian Penal Code. A sentence of imprisonment for life means a sentence for the entire life of the· prisoner unless the appro- priate Government chooses to exercise its discretion to remit either the whole or a part of the sentence under s. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. [559G] (2) The appropriate Government has the discretion to remit or refuse to remit the sentence and where it refuses to remit the sentence no writ can be issued directing the State Government to release the prisoner. [560A] (a) The appropriate Government which is empowered to grant remission under s. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the Government of the State where 'the prisoner had been convicted and sentenced, that is, the transferor Slate and not the transferee State where the prisoner may have been transferred at his instance under the Transfer of Prisoners Act. [560B] (b) Where the transferee State feels that the accused had completed a period of 20 years it haSJ merely to forward the request of the prisoner to the Government of the State where the prisoner was convicted and sentenced and if this request was rejected by the State Government the /order of the Govern- ment cannot be interfered with by a High Court in its writ jllrisdiction. [56'0D] ' ' , M.P. STATE v. RATAN SINGH (Fazal Ali, J.) 553 [Since the respondent was released 1n pursuance of the order of th~ High Court, the release order was allowed to stand.] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 246 of 1971. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 13th May 1971 of the Punjab and Haryana High Comt in Crimi,nal Original No. 61-M of 1971. Ram Panjwani, Deputy Advocate General, M.P., Ii. S. Parihar, • and l. N. Shroff, for the Appellants. 0. P. Sharma, M. S. Dhillon and S. K. Mehta, for Responder.ts Nos. 2 to 4. Nemu for Respondent No. I. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL Au, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against A B c the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated May 13, D 1971 by which the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent Ratan Singh a prisoner who was confined in Central Jail, Amritsar. The appeal arises in the following circumstances. The respondent Ratan Singh was convicted by the Sessions Judge, " r Bhind in the State of Madhya Pradesh by his order dated October 16, 1957 under s. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.