SUBE SINGH & ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 141 · Decided: 21-09-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

<l> 
SUBE SINGH & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 21, 1988 
A 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.] 
B 
Punjab Borstal Act, 1926: Ss. 5 and 2(4)-Adolescents convicted 
for offence of murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life under 
s. 302 !PC-Whether entitled to benefit of s. 5 of the Act. 
Section S of the Punjab Borstal Act, 1926 empowers courts to pass 
C 
a sentence of detention in a Borstal Institution In the case of male 
persons less than twenty one years of age convicted of an otTence 
punishable under the Indian Penal Code, In lieu of passing a sentence of 
transportation or rigorous imprisonment. Section 2(4) of the Act which 
defines 'offence' takes in offences other than an offence punishable with 
1 
death. 
D 
The petitioners who have been convicted for the offence punish· 
able under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to 
! 
life imprisonment, claim entitlement to the benefit of s. S of the Act. 
Dismissing the writ petitions, 
HELD: The Punjab Borstal Act, 1926 does not have application 
to an offence punishable under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. [l43GJ 
The offence of murder is punishable with death even though the 
E 
punishment awarded is not death but imprisonment for life. [l44Hf 
F 
'Punishable' in s. 2(4) of the Act carries a meaning 'liable to be 
punished'. Since the offence under s. 302 is punishable with death, the 
provisions of the Punjab Borstal Act would not cover an offence under 
s. 302 of I.P.C. and the benefit would not, therefore, be available to an 
accused convicted for the offence under s. 302 I.P.C. [l45E] 
G 
Subhash Chand v. State of Haryana· & Ors., [1988] l SCC 717 
applied; Hava Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr., [1987] 4 SCC 207; 
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Vallabhapuram Ravi, [1984] 4 SCC 410 and 
Kunwar Bahadur & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1980] (Supp.) SCC 
339, distinguished. 
H 
141. 
142 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Cr!.) No. 648 of 
1987 etc. etc. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) 
D.S. Tewatia, Mukul Mudgal, Rakesh Khanna, P.K. Jain, R.P. 
Singh, C.V.S. Rao, Prem Malhotra, S.K. Sabharwal, Mahabir Singh, 
B Mrs. Urmila Kapoor and N. Sudhakaran for the appearing parties. 
c 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANGANATH MISRA, J. These are a batch of writ petitions 
under Article 32 of the Constitution raising the common claim of enti-
tlement to the benefit of Section 5 of the Punjab Borstal Act, 1926. 
In each of these writ petitions, the petitioner has been convicted 
for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 
and has been sentenced to life imprisonment. The State of Haryana 
has challenged the claim of the petitioner in each of these writ 
O 
petitions. 
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision 
of this Court in Hava Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr., [1987] 4 SCC 
207 in support of the claim advanced in the writ petitions. A two Judge 
Bench of this Court in that case referred to Section 5 of the Act and 
E held: 
F 
"On a conspectus of the aforesaid decision as well as 
on a consideration of the facts and circumstances the only 
conclusion follows that the petitioner who has already 
undergone actual imprisonment for seven years is entitled 
to be released from detention and from imprisonment. 
Paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual is not appli-
cable in this case as the petitioner who was an adolescent 
convict below twenty-one years of age was sent to the Bors-
tal Institute at Hissar for detention in accordance with the 
provisions of Section 5 of the Pun jab Borstal Act, 1926. He 
being convicted by the Sessions Judge the maximum period 
of detention as prescribed by the Act is ·seven years. We 
have already said hereinbefore that such an inmate of the 
Borstal Institute cannot be transferred to jail on the ground 
that he has attained the age of twenty-one years as the said 
Act does not provide for the same. The only provision for 
transfer to jail is in the case of incorrigible inmate or 
·:,. .. 
SUBE SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA [MISRA, J.J 
143 
inmates convicted of major Borstal Institution offence." 
A 
Reliance· was also placed by learned counsel for the petitioners 
on another two-Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of State 
of Andhra Pradesh v. Vallabhapuram Ravi, [1984] 4 SCC 410. That 
was a case under the Andhra Pradesh Borstal Schoo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.