PRAMOD ISLOOR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this habeas corpus writ petition was argued on behalf of the writ petitioner, a con: vict serving sentence of life imprisonment in the Bangalore central prison, by Shri B.T.Parthasarathy, a senior counsel, readily responding to our request made to him in that regard, considering the importance of the claims in the writ petition that Section 433a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the code"), which has come into force on 18-12-1978, requiring that a person undergoing a sentence of ment for life imposed on conviction for an offence for which death is one of the punish- ments provided by law, or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been com- muted under Section 433 of the code into one of imprisonment for life, shall not be released from prison unless he had served al- least fourteen years of imprisonment, was not attracted to the writ petitioner's case and that the superintendent of Bangalore central prison should be directed to examine his case for releasing him from prison by giving the benefit of remission rules and Section 428 of the code relating to set off of the period of detention of a person as under- trial prisoner against the term of imprison- ment imposed on him on conviction for an offence, as prevailing on 4-6-1977, the date on which he must be regarded to have been convicted and imposed the sentence of life imprisonment.

(2.) the said claims in the writ petitionwere contested by Shri N.K.Gupta, government Advocate appearing for the state of karnataka, on the basis of the aver- ments in (he counter-affidavit of the senior imprison superintendent of the Bangalore central prison filed in the writ petition. However, as desired by us, he got filed from the senior superintendent of the central prison the 'roll of the prisoner' pertaining to the writ petitioner.

(3.) we shall mention, at the outset, the undisputed material i'acls which have to form the basis for our decision on the points arising for consideration from the arguments addressed by learned counsel on either side. Pramod isloor is the petitioner. He was arrested on 4-3-1977 by the sirsi police on a charge of murder. The sessions court of north kanara found him guilty of the offence of murder and convicted him for that offence and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life, by its judgment delivered on 4-6-1977. That judgment being appealed against before this court, it was set aside by this court and re-trial of the case by the sessions court was ordered. In pursuance thereof, re-trial being held by the sessions court, by its judgment dated 25-0-1978, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, again being found guilty of the offence of murder, of which he was charged. The later judgment being appealed against before this court, that judgment also was set aside and this court ordered re-trial at the ease over again. Re-trial so ordered having been held by the sessions court, by its judgment dated 30-11-1979, the petitioner was found guilty of the charge of murder levelled against him and was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, then as well. Thereafter, the appeals taken up by the petitioner against the latest judgment before the high court and the Supreme Court having been proved futile, the petitioner has served a part of the sentence of life imprisonment in belgaum central prison and is continuing to serve the remaining part of the sentence of life imprisonment in the Bangalore central prison. His request made to the senior superintendent of the Bangalore central prison for his premature release by giving him the benefit of remission under the remission rules and the set off of the conviction detention provided for under sec- tion 428 of the code, being denied on the plea that the provision relating to serving of mandatory minimum sentence of fourteen years by a person sentenced to undergo life imprisonment being found guilty of an of- fence punishable with death, is applicable to his case, the petitioner got sent a petition to this, court through the senior superinten- dent of the Bangalore central prison and the same has been registered as a habeas cor- pus writ petition by this court.