- JUDGEMENT SUMMARY – Union of India and others v. Sadha Singh
- DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 25th October 1999
- JUDGES – Justice K.T. Thomas and Justice M.B. Shah
FACTS –
The respondent in the case, Sadha Singh was given life imprisonment and was dismissed from service by the General Court Martial under the Army Act Section 69 as well as under Section 302 of IPC. To this, an appeal was made to the High Court by the convict for acquittal on the ground that he had undergone imprisonment exceeding 14 years. The High Court provided in light of the same that the respondent would be entitled to remissions earned in jail and therefore the respondent spent a total period of 15 years 8 months and 29 days of imprisonment which obviously exceeded 14 years, and hence was acquitted. This appeal is in light of the same.
CONTENTIONS –
Appellant –It was contended that the appellant had not gone through actual imprisonment for 14 years and had only spent 11 years in actual custody, 1 years 8 months in pre-trail custody as on when the High Court took up the case. Further, as per Section 433-A, a life sentence is a minimum of 14 years of actual imprisonment should be served by the accused or until the last breath of the victim unless mandated otherwise.
It was also submitted that Section 433-A escapes the exclusion of Section 5 CrPC since Section 5 saves all remissions short-sentencing schemes as special and local laws and, therefore, they must prevail over the Code including Section 433-Aexpressly. It also declares that specific provisions, if any, to the contrary will prevail over any special or local law. Though the Army Act is a special law providing trial, punishment, etc. Section 179 to 190 provide for remission, suspension of sentence, etc. and there is no provision contrary to Section 433. Therefore, it would operate in the field of a prisoner undergoing sentence of life imprisonment and is convicted for an offence punishable by death. Therefore, the convicted has to serve at least 14 years imprisonment excluding remissions earned in jail.
Defendant – It was contended that the Court had previously held that in view of the Army Act, prisoners convicted by the General Court Martial are not entitled to get a benefit under Section 428 CrPC which provides for detention to be set off as imprisonment. The contention of the defendant was that the case has no bearing in the applicability of Section 433-A, since the Army Act has no contrary provision. Since Section 433-A is applicable for those undergoing imprisonment for life, it was submitted that the reduction of sentence below 14 years would serve as an embargo. It was also clarified that since the judgment made, the Act was amended and Section 169-A was added which provides that certain time spent as custody can be set off against imprisonment.
JUDGEMENT –
The court allowed the appeal and held that since the convict did not complete 14 years of actual imprisonment, he is liable to complete the same.
