PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case comes up on the application under Sec. 482, Cr. P. C. by Pratap Singh who was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 4/70 under Sec. 302 and 307, I. P. C. and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Sec. 302, I. P. C. and R. I. for five years under Sec. 337, I. P. C. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. But, while committing the accused to jail for undergoing the sentence, a warrant was issued in which the following endorsement was made:-

(2.) The only submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that whether to grant remission or not is the exclusive power of the State Government, and the Court cannot while committing the accused to jail mention in the warrant that the accused is not entitled to special remissions. In this connection, he has made a reference to S. 401, Cr. P. C. (1898) which corresponds to S. 432, Cr. P. C., 1973. Under S. 401, Cr. P. C. (1898), the State Govt. can remit the whole or any part of punishment to which the offender has been sentenced. S. 401 and S. 402, Cr. P. C. came for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in G. V. Godsey Vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1968 S. C. 600) . Dealing with those sections and the rules framed under the Prisoners Act, e. g. Bombay Rules 1419(c) and 1447 (2), it was held that they enabled the State Government to grant remissions, and a prisoner earns remission under the rules framed under the Prisoners Act. In Rajasthan also, the Rajasthan Prison Rules, 1951 have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 59 of the Prisons Act and part of 3 of those rules deals with remission system. Therefore, the remissions can only be granted under the Rules by the State Government or the authorities authorised under the rules. A perusal of the warrant of commitment to Jail of the the accused will show that it is a warrant under Sec. 383, Cr. P. C. (1898), Rule 54 of the General Rules (Criminal) provides that a separate warrant shall be directed to the officer incharge of the Jail for each prisoner in respect of whom a sentence of imprisonment is passed and it also provides as to what a warrant shall contain. Form 12 is the relevant form of classification of convicts and in the prescribed form F. 12 regarding classification of convicts, various entries are to be made in accordance with the Government notifications No. D-168.00Jail/50 dated 25-3-50, Read with notification No. F. 1 (89) Jails/5 dated 20-9-50. But even form 12 for Classification of convicts does not contain that the court while committing the accused to jail for undergoing the sentence will be entitled to say whether remissions or special remissions, if any, should be granted or not. I had sent for the record and the same has been pursued and it does not appear on what basis and under what powers it was written in the warrant that the prisoner shall not be eligible for grant of special remissions on auspicious occasions. Even the learned P.P. on going through the record, could not show as to on what basis it was entered in the warrant of commitment to Jail. If the remission Rules made under the Prisoners Act entitle a prisoner for certain remissions, then the prisoner cannot be deprived of the same. Under what conditions a prisoner is entitled for remissions or whether he is eligible or not for the same will depend on the relevant rules, According to the learned Advocate, because of the insertion in the warrant of commitment to jail that the prisoner shall not be eligible for grant of special remissions on auspicious occasions the accused has been deprived of the remissions to which he is really entitled. He had also approached the learned Sessions Judge and he has refused to grant any relief on the ground that the appeal was dismissed by that court. I am, therefore, of the opinion that to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, it is necessary that in the warrant dated 11-8-70 of commitment to jail of the accused-petitioner the words "not eligible" in between (4) and "for grant" should be struck out and the warrant should be read as if these words were not inserted therein. Order accordingly.