STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. RATAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated May 13, 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.

(2.) The respondent Ratan Singh was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Bhind in the State of Madhya Pradesh by his order dated October 16, 1957 under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. An appeal filed by the respondent against the order of the Sessions Judge was dismissed by the High Court on May 19, 1959. Thereafter the accused made a prayer to the Government for transferring him from Gwalior Jail to Amritsar as the accused/respondent belonged to Punjab State. The representation of the accused was accepted and accordingly he was transferred to the Punjab Jail where he was lodged at Central Jail, Amritsar. The order of transfer was passed on October 15, 1959. The respondent contended that as he had completed the period of 20 years' imprisonment including the remissions granted under the Punjab Jail Manual he was entitled to be released forthwith and he accordingly made an application for his release to Punjab Government. In fact the admitted position is that on May 7, 1971 the accused had undergone imprisonment for a period of 25 years 18 days and 19 hours taking into account the various remissions granted to him from time to time. The Government of Punjab forwarded the representation of the respondent to the Government of Madhya Pradesh for passing an order of release. On April 18, 1971 the State of Madhya Pradesh rejected the request of the respondent for his release. Thereafter the accused/respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on the ground that the accused having served the sentence for more than 20 years was entitled to be released as a matter of course under the provisions of the Punjab Jail Manual and the Rules framed under the Prisons Act. It was also contended by the respondent that as he was lodged in a jail under the jurisdiction of the Punjab Government, the appropriate Government to order his release was the Punjab Government and not the Government of Madhya Pradesh and, therefore, the request made by the Punjab Government to the Madhya Pradesh Government was not warranted by law. The High Court without issuing notice to the State of Madhya Pradesh and after hearing the Advocate-General accepted the plea taken by the respondent and held that Punjab State was the appropriate authority to release the respondent. The High Court relied upon a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sitaram Barelal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1969 Madh Pra 252 and directed that as the respondent had already served more than 20 years he was entitled to be released forthwith. Accordingly the High Court allowed the petition and directed the State Government to consider the case of the respondent for being released and dispose of the case within 20 days from the date of the order of the High Court. It appears that in pursuance of the order of the High Court the respondent was released.

(3.) The State of Madhya Pradesh has filed this appeal by special leave against the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on the ground that in law it was the Madhya Pradesh Government alone which had the power to remit the sentence and release the prisoner and the High Court was in error in holding that the Punjab government could pass the order of release. Appearing in support of the appeal Mr. Ram Panjwani learned counsel submitted two points before us. In the first place it was argued that the High Court completely overlooked the legal position that a sentence of imprisonment for life could not be said to be a sentence which would expire automatically after the expiry of 20 years including remissions. The sentence would enure till the lifetime of the prisoner but the State Government had the discretion under Sections 401 and 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to remit the remaining part of the sentence and order release of the prisoner. Secondly, it was submitted that as the prisoner was convicted by a Court situate in the State of Madhya Pradesh the appropriate Government was the Madhya Pradesh Government and not the Punjab Government where the prisoner was transferred to exercise its discretion under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No one appeared for the respondent, but at the time of granting special leave, this Court had ordered that the release of the prisoner would not be reopened even if the appeal succeeded. In other words the State of Madhya Pradesh in this case is not concerned with the individual case of the respondent but only wants an authoritative decision on the important principle involved in the case.