BHAGIRATH RAKESH KAUSHIK Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION:DELHI ADMINISTRATION
LAWS(SC)-1985-4-38
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
April 16,1985
BHAGIRATH,RAKESH KAUSHIK
Appellant
VERSUS
DELHI ADMINISTRATION
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
GOPAL VINAYAK GODSE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [RECONCILED]MARU RAM BHIMWA RAM SHANKER KRISHNA RAGHUBIR SINGH RAMPUJA SINGH NIRBHAI SINGH BALKRISHAN GUPTA VENY SINGH BABULAL GAUTAM OM PRAKASH NAGEBHUSHANAM PATNAIK RAGHUNATH SINGH JAGIR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [RECONCILED]
KARTAR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA THROUOH INSPECTOR GENBRAL OF PRISON CHANDIGARH [OVERRULED]
Cited Judgements :-
MADHAVAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1992-2-49] [REFERRED TO]KUZHIYARAMADIYIL MADHAVAN VS. STATE [LAWS(KER)-1992-2-51] [RELIED ON]
YADIKI NADIPI YERIKALA REDDY ALIAS BOREDDI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1999-6-98] [REFERRED TO]
SOHORAB MOLLA VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2005-12-72] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM PAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2012-10-694] [REFERRED]
A M AGENCIES VS. UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD [LAWS(APH)-2000-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
ADE BHASKARA RAO VS. STATE [LAWS(APH)-1998-7-21] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR ALIAS GOLU VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1990-7-31] [HARMONISED AND AFFIRMED]
LAKKHI AND VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1995-8-16] [REFERRED TO]
KUMAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2014-9-402] [REFERRED TO]
EX SEPOY SULAKHAN SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-1997-5-81] [REFERRED TO]
SULAKHAN SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1997-5-253] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU; SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL PRISON PUZHAL [LAWS(MAD)-2016-8-198] [REFERRED]
KASHMIRI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2011-9-10] [REFERRED TO]
VINODKUMAR SUDARSHAN KELKAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2004-9-185] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHAKARA VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2013-3-224] [REFERRED TO]
BABU SHANKAR PATIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-4-97] [REFERRED TO]
E K CHANDRASENAN ALIAS BABY VS. DEPUTY S P CB CID CSF ERNAKULAM [LAWS(KER)-2000-10-3] [REFERRED]
DUSSA SRINU VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISONERS AGRICULTURAL COLONY, CHERLAPALLI [LAWS(APH)-2017-2-54] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR YADAV VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-2005-4-36] [REFERRED TO]
GIRISH GAUTAM S/O MALARAM SHARMA (BRAHMAN) VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-4-79] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2023-1-5] [REFERRED TO]
K V CHACKO VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2003-4-39] [REFERRED TO]
ABU SALEM ABDUL KAYYUM ANSARI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2022-7-18] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2022-7-97] [REFERRED TO]
VARITA SONI VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2013-1-156] [REFERRED TO]
ZILE SINGH VS. STATE GNCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-12-121] [REFERRED TO]
BANDI PRAKASH VS. SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON [LAWS(APH)-2000-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
L PRABHUSWAMY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2016-4-186] [REFERRED]
JANGLIYABHAI RANGLABHAI DHANUK VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2012-9-220] [REFERRED TO]
PHOOL SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-4-145] [REFERRED TO]
KSH. KENNEDY SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2022-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
TARACHAND KAPARI VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2016-1-25] [REFERRED TO]
ZAHID HUSSEIN VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(SC)-2001-3-137] [REFERRED]
M.N. EKASAN VS. STATE AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MAD)-2008-4-405] [REFERRED TO]
PRAHLAD DNYANOBA GAJBHIYE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1994-3-20] [REFERRED TO]
KASHMIRI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2011-7-83] [REFERRED TO]
JAYAWANT DATTATRAY SURYARAO VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2001-11-83] [REFERRED]
J UMARANI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2017-11-228] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS VS. D K SHARMA S/O RAM DAS SHARMA AND ORS [LAWS(PAT)-2015-10-130] [REFERRED]
SENAUL S/O AFSAR SHAIKH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-6-10] [REFERRED TO]
Santosh Bhau Homane VS. State of Maharashtra [LAWS(BOM)-2005-12-100] [REFERRED TO]
DNYANDEO S/O GOPINATH PAWAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-10-184] [REFERRED TO]
ROHAN DHUNGAT SON OF PRADEEP R PAI DHUNGAT VS. STATE (THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR, PANAJI POLICE STATION) [LAWS(BOM)-2019-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
Y DASS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1989-9-49] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. V. SRIHARAN @ MURUGAN [LAWS(SC)-2015-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
EAR ALI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-12-51] [REFERRED TO]
CRIMINAL REFERENCE NO 2 OF 1987 VS. STATE [LAWS(KER)-1987-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
T V BALAN VS. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT [LAWS(KER)-1996-4-13] [REFERRED TO]
S SUDHA VS. SUPERINTENDENT OPEN PRISON NETTUKATHERI [LAWS(KER)-1992-11-13] [RELIED ON]
RAVI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1986-9-16] [RELIED ON]
NISAR AHMED MOHD IQBAL ABID VS. RUKIYA [LAWS(KAR)-2014-4-329] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHIN CHANDRA BARMAN VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2006-9-43] [REFERRED OF]
MRITUNJAY GOBIND GHOSH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-12-330] [REFERRED TO]
GANPAT SHETYE VS. STATE [LAWS(BOM)-2019-11-76] [REFERRED TO]
IMA DEVI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-12-25] [REFERRED TO]
RAJARAM KASHINATH CHAROSKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH KUMAR S/O JAI KISHAN SHARMA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-5-14] [REFERRED TO]
R JEEVANANDAM VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1991-2-39] [REFERRED TO]
NATWAR LAL VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2000-12-14] [REFERRED TO]
NARANJAN SINGH S/O NAND SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1986-7-34] [REFERRED TO]
MUKHTIAR SINGH AND ORS. VS. KRISHNA GULATI AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1986-1-53] [REFERRED TO]
HOME SECRETARY (PRISON-IV) VS. A. PALANISWAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2021-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH SAH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2023-11-31] [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS YADAV VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC. ETC. [LAWS(SC)-2016-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-2010-1-105] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHANDER VS. KRISHAN LAL [LAWS(SC)-2001-3-129] [REFERRED]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. JAGDISH [LAWS(SC)-2010-3-9] [REFERRED TO]
BHOLESHWAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-1-354] [REFERRED TO]
P V BAKTHAVATCHALAM VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1990-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
IN REFERENCE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2018-9-133] [REFERRED TO]
DATTU CHIMANRAO MARATHA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1985-9-2] [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. V. SRIHARAN @ MURUGAN [LAWS(SC)-2014-4-78] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM RATI DEVI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1990-7-20] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. BALRAJ SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1985-5-5] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA KUMAR VS. STATE GOVT OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-1994-7-28] [REFERRED TO]
KALYAN SINGH VS. D P SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-1992-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
JANDEL SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-1986-1-4] [REFERRED TO]
PALANISAMY AND CHINNASAMY ALIAS VAKKIL VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2006-7-203] [REFERRED TO]
CHITTAR LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2010-9-15] [REFERRED TO]
SATNAM SINGH PURANSING GILL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2009-1-87] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR PRASAD VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-1985-10-16] [REFERRED TO]
BALWINDER SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-1998-11-126] [REFERRED TO]
KEDAR SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1991-2-97] [REFERRED TO]
ATAUR MRIDHA @ ATAUR VS. STATE [LAWS(BANG)-2017-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
JOHN CLEMENTS VS. ALL CONCERNED [LAWS(APH)-2003-5-33] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Chandrachud, C. J. -
(1.)We have before us an appeal and a writ petition, which are filed by two persons sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence of murder. They contend that they are entitled to the benefit of S. 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that is to say, that the period of detention undergone by them prior to their conviction as under trial prisoners must be set off against the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon them.
(2.)The appellant, Bhagirath, filed a petition in the Delhi High Court asking that his case be referred for the orders of the Delhi Administration under paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual since, though sentenced to life imprisonment, he had undergone a period of detention in jail amounting to 14 years together with the remissions earned by, him. A learned Single Judge of the High Court rejected that petition on the ground that, in computing the period of 14 years, the period spent by the convict in the jail as an under trial prisoner cannot be taken into account because, Section 428 of the Code which allows such a set off applies only when an accused has been sentenced 'imprisonment for a term', and the sentence of life imprisonment is not an imprisonment 'for a term'. In coming, to the conclusion that S. 428 has no application to cases in which an accused is sentenced to life imprisonment, the learned Judge relied upon a judgment of this Court in Kartar Singh v. State of Haryana (1983) 1 SCR 445.
(3.)The petitioner in the companion writ petition, Rakesh Kaushik, has a somewhat similar grievance, though he has needlessly introduced extraneous matters in his pleadings. One of his contentions is that the remissions earned by him as a convict must be taken into account while computing the period of 14 years under paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual. He contends also, that in any case, he, ought to be given the benefit of Sections 432 and 433 of the Code because, his case merits a favourable consideration by the Delhi Administration. In support of his case, he relies upon an order dated March 3, 1983 passed by this Court in Sukhlal Hansda v. State of West Bengal Writ Petitions (Crl.) 1128-29 of 1982. According to the counter-affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary (Home) of the Delhi Administration, the petitioner's case cannot be considered for premature release because he has not yet undergone 14 years of imprisonment, inclusive of remissions earned by him.
(2.)The appellant, Bhagirath, filed a petition in the Delhi High Court asking that his case be referred for the orders of the Delhi Administration under paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual since, though sentenced to life imprisonment, he had undergone a period of detention in jail amounting to 14 years together with the remissions earned by, him. A learned Single Judge of the High Court rejected that petition on the ground that, in computing the period of 14 years, the period spent by the convict in the jail as an under trial prisoner cannot be taken into account because, Section 428 of the Code which allows such a set off applies only when an accused has been sentenced 'imprisonment for a term', and the sentence of life imprisonment is not an imprisonment 'for a term'. In coming, to the conclusion that S. 428 has no application to cases in which an accused is sentenced to life imprisonment, the learned Judge relied upon a judgment of this Court in Kartar Singh v. State of Haryana (1983) 1 SCR 445.
(3.)The petitioner in the companion writ petition, Rakesh Kaushik, has a somewhat similar grievance, though he has needlessly introduced extraneous matters in his pleadings. One of his contentions is that the remissions earned by him as a convict must be taken into account while computing the period of 14 years under paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual. He contends also, that in any case, he, ought to be given the benefit of Sections 432 and 433 of the Code because, his case merits a favourable consideration by the Delhi Administration. In support of his case, he relies upon an order dated March 3, 1983 passed by this Court in Sukhlal Hansda v. State of West Bengal Writ Petitions (Crl.) 1128-29 of 1982. According to the counter-affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary (Home) of the Delhi Administration, the petitioner's case cannot be considered for premature release because he has not yet undergone 14 years of imprisonment, inclusive of remissions earned by him.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.