LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SADHA SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. SADHA SINGH OCTOBER 25, 1999 (K.T. THOMAS AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Sections 5 and 433A Army Act, 1950: Sections 69,177,179-190 Life imprisonment-Premature release-Accused-Conviction under Section 302 !PC and Section 69 of Army Act-Life ·imprisonment-Actual imprisonment undergone for less than fourteen years-Direction for premature release by High Court-Remission of four years earned by accused in jail D taken into account-Appeal by State before Supreme C.ourt-Held, in the Army Act there is no specific provision similar to Section 433A of Cr. P.C. or contrary to it-Bar uls 433A on release before completion of fourteen years held applicable-Accused to serve 14 years imprisonment excluding remission earned in jail . . E The respondent, convicted by the General Court martial for an offence under Section 302 IPC and under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950, was awarded life imprisonment. He had not undergone actual imprisonment for 14 years. However, he filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court for his immediate release. Taking into account the remission of four F years earned by him in the jail, the High Court directed his immedia1te release. Union of India preferred appeal before this Court. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : In the present case, respondent was convicted under Section 69 G of the Army Act, 1950 for the offence of murder. It is true that Army Act is a special Act inter alia providing for investigation, trial and punishment for the offences mentioned therein by a special procedure. Section 177 empowers the Central Government to make rules in respect of prisons and prisoners. Sections 177 and 190 provide for pardon, remissions and suspension of the sentence. There is no specific provision similar to Section 433A or contrary H 28 ; . ~. ~ ... , U.0.1. v. SADHA SINGH [SHAH. J.) 29 to it. Hence, Section 433A would operate in the field and a prisoner, who is A undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life and is convicted for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under Section 433(1) Cr.P.C. to imprisonment for life, has to serve at least 14 years of imprisonment excluding remissions earned in jail. As the respondent has not completed 14 B years of actual imprisonment, the order passed by High Court is quashed and set aside. (31-D-E; 32-C) Maru Ram v. Union of India & Anr., (1981) 1SCR1196, relied on. Ajit Kumar etc. v. Union of India, (1987) Supp. SCC 493, held C inapplicable. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. I 099 of 1999. From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9.98 of the Punjab and Haryana D High Court in Cr!. W.P. No.1752of1997. Ashok Bhan and Arvind Kumar Sharma for the Appellants. Ranjan Mukherjee, (A.C.) for the Respondent. E Ms. Rupinder Kaur Wasu and Rajiv Dutta for State of Punjab. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. Leave Granted. F This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 22. 9.1998 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Writ Petition No.1752 of 1997 filed by the respondent. Respondent was awarded life imprisonment and dismissed from service G by the General Court Martial after being tried for the offence under Section 302 1.P.C. and under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950. He preferred a writ petition in the High Court for his immediate release from the imprisonment on the ground that he has undergone imprisonment exceeding 14 years. The High Court arrived at the conclusion that in view of the decision in Ajit Kumar etc. v. Union of India, (1987) Supp. SCC 493, the respondent would H 30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP.14 S.C.R. A be entitled to remissions earned in the jail and thereby respondent spent total period of 15 years 8 months and 29 days of imprisonment which obviously exceeded 14 years. The Court, therefore, directed immediate release of the respondent. That order is challenged by filing this appeal. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that B respondent has not undergone actual imprisonment for 14 years. Before the High Court, it was admitted that respondent had spent 11 years and I month in actual custody,. I year 7 months and 29 days in pre-trial custody and has earned 4 years remission in the jail. It is,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.