JAI PARKASH @ KAKU Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Jai Parkash committed the offence of murder at Gangtok in the State of Sikkim on May 13, 1976. His trial commenced, in the Court of Sessions Judge, Sikkim, at Gangtok. However, pending trial his case was transferred to the Court of Sessions judge, Darjeeling, in the State of West Bengal by the Supreme Court vide order dated September 30, 1977 (Annexure P. 1). It was directed that the Sessions Judge'. Darjeeling will take the case at Siliguri and according to the procedural law applicable in Sikkim. The Sessions Judge, Darjeeling, convicted the petitioner under section 302, Indian Penal Code on June 8, 1979, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Thereafter the petitioner by way of inter-State transfer was sent to Punjab where he is currently undergoing imprisonment in Central Jail, Patiala. In this writ petition the petitioner has impleaded the States of Sikkim, West Bengal and Punjab as respondents and has claimed two reliefs. The first relief is that the respondent-State of Sikkim be directed to decide the pre-mature release case of the petitioner, expeditiously. The second relief is that his case for premature release be determined in accordance with the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and accordingly the provisions of section 433 -A of the New Code, of 1973 should not be applied.

(2.) THE States of Sikkim and Punjab have put, in appearance in these proceedings the State of West Bengal has failed to appear despite service and has been proceeded against ex parte.

(3.) IT is next to be considered as to the procedural law of which States will be applicable to consider the pre-mature release case of the petitioner. The petitioner committed the offence in the State of Sikkim. He was tried by the Sessions Judge. Darjeeling in the State of West Bengal but according to the procedural law applicable in the State of Sikkim. It, therefore, becomes clear. that his case for pre-mature release has also to be considered in accordance with the procedural law applicable in Sikkim. It will be anomalous to hold that while the petitioner was entitled to be tried in accordance with the law and procedure applicable in the State of Sikkim, his case for pre-mature release should be considered according to the procedural law applicable in some other State. The Supreme Court although transferred the petitioner's case for trial from the Court of the Sessions Judge, Sikkim. to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Darjeeling, in West Bengal, but the case was deemed to be tried as if the trial was taking place within the State or Sikkim In such circumstances the petitioner indeed is entitled to seek the relief of pre-mature release as if he was convicted in the State of Sikkim and was undergoing sentence in the Jail of that State. The inevitable conclusion. therefore, is that the pre-mature release case of the petitioner has to be considered by the State of West Bengal, which is the appropriate Government, but in accordance with the procedural law applicable in the State of Sikkim.