LAWS(MPH)-1972-12-9

KANHAIYALAL VAIDYA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH BHOPAL

Decided On December 16, 1972
KANHAIYALAL VAIDYA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, BHOPAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Kanhaiyalal Vaidya, an Ex-Member of the Parliament and presently a non-official visitor for the Central Jail, Bherogarh, Ujjain, has made the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for an order in the nature of habeas corpus claiming the release of eight convicts undergoing life sentences in the said jail at Ujjain on the ground that their imprisonment beyond the dates specified in paragraph 8 of this petition was illegal.

(2.) THE material facts are these :- THE convicts Nanda, Ramprasad, Shaligram, Champalal, Modsingh, Udaliya, Shivpal and Peerawa were sentenced to imprisonment for life by different Courts in different cases and on different dates in the State of Madhya Pradesh as shown in Annexure 'A'. THE petitioner claims that as an official visitor, he has visited the Central Jail at Bherogarh and found that the aforesaid prisoners had become due for release from prison since the dates mentioned against their names in column No. 8 of the said Annexure, but were not so released by the Jail Superintendent ; that the enquiries made by him did not reveal that an order forbidding the release of the said prisoners was passed by the State Government under the Rules framed under the Prisons Act, 1894; that the petitioner made several efforts to bring this fact of wrongful imprisonment to the notice of the State Government but without any result and that in these circumstances a direction be issued to the State Government and the Superintendent, Jail, Bherogarh to produce the prisoners before the Court and direct their release from imprisonment.

(3.) WE have examined the respective contentions of both the parties. In our opinion, this petition must be rejected for the following reasons. The first question that arises for consideration is as to whether in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Penal Code under which the prisoners were sentenced to life imprisonment there is no authority for the view that a sentence of life imprisonment is to be reckoned as a sentence for a period of 20 years. This question, in our opinion, is concluded by the two Division Bench judgments of this Court in Nathu v. State (Misc. Petition No. 27 of 1972 dated 10-3-1972.) and Rama v. State (Misc. Criminal Case No. 47 of 1972 dated 10-3-1972.) and the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra and others (AIR 1961 SC 600.) Even the learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to refer to any other provision of the Indian Penal Code which could justify the view that a sentence of life imprisonment is to be reckoned as a sentence of 20 years imprisonment.