N Criminal Appeal No 754 Of 1983 From the judgment and Order dated 5 7 1983 of the High  court of Delhi in Crl
Main No 499 of 1983
AND Writ Petition Cd No 1265 of 1982
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India Mukul Mudgal for the Appellant in Crl
Appeal No 754 of 1983 RK Jain  RP Singh  Suman Kapoor  DSMehra and Miss 746 Sangeeta Aggarwal for the Petitioner in WP No 1266 of 1982
MS Gujarat  GD Gupta  RN Poodar and Miss Halida khatun  for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD  CJ
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 Section 428 Or the Code of Criminal Procedure  that is to say  that the period of detention undergone by them prior to their conviction as undertrial prisoners must be off against the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon them
The appellant  Bhagirath  filed a petition in the Delhi High Court asking that his case be referred for the e orders of the Delhi Administration under paragraph 516 B of the Punjab Jail Manual since  though sentenced to life imprisonment  ha 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 sent 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 to imprisonment for a term   and the sentence of life imprisonment is not an imprisonment for a term 
In coming to the conclusion that section 428 has no application to cases which an accused is sentenced to life imprisonment  the learned Judge relied upon a judgment of this Court in Kartar Singh vs State of Haryana
  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 1  747 into account while computing the period of 14 years under para graph 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  1982 passed by this Court in Sukhlal Hansda vs State of West Bengal
1 According to the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary Home of the Delhi Administration  the petitioner s case cannot be considered for petitioner s release because he has not yet undergone 14 years of imprisonment  inclusive of remissions earned by him
First  We would prefer to interpret section 428 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure on its own terms  that is  divorced from considerations arising under the Punjab Jail Manual or any other Jail Manual
The Provisions of Jail Manuals vary from State to State
Therefore  questions arising under those Manuals cannot be mixed up with questions arising under the Code  which is the law of the land
Section 428 of the Code reads thus Period of detention undergone by the undergone by the accused to be set off against the sentence of imprisonment  Where an accused person has  on conviction  been sentenced to imprisonment for a term  not being imprisonment in default of payment of fine  the period of detention  if any undergone by him during the investigation  inquiry or trial of the same case and before the date of such conviction  Shall be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him on such conviction  and the liability of such person to undergo imprisonment on such conviction shall be restricted to the reminder  if any  of the trem of imprisonment imposed on him
 The neat and  we believe  the simple question for decision is whether imprisonment for life is imprisonment for a terms
The reason why it is urged that imprisonment for life is not imprisonment for a term is that the latter expression comprehends only imprisonments for a fixed  certain and ascertainable period of time like six months  two years  five years and so on
Since the sentence 1 Writ Petitions Cod Nos
1128 26 of 1982 748 of life imprisonment  as held by this Court in Gopal Vinayak Godse vs The Stale of Maharashtra  1 is a sentence for life and nothing less and since  the term of life is itself Uncertain  the sentence of life imprisonment is for an uncertain term  that is to say  that it is not imprisonment for a term So goes the argument
So does it go but it fails to carry much conviction
Life is uncertain
In more ways than one
Who knows what good may come tomorrow and how many good tomorrows there are still to go  But  philosophical digressions apart  especially optimistic  the fact that the term of life is of an uncertain duration does not justify the conclusion that the sentence of imprisonment for life is not for a term
The relevant question and  the only one  to ask under section 428 is Has this person been sentenced to imprisonment for a term  For the sake of convenience  the question may be split into two parts
One  has this person been sentenced to imprisonment  And  two  is the imprisonment to which he has been sentenced an imprisonment for a term  There can possibly be no dispute that a person sentenced to life imprisonment is sentenced to imprisonment
Then  what is the term to which he is sentenced  The obvious answer to that question is that term to which he has been sentenced is the term of his life
Therefore  a person who is sentenced to life imprisonment is sentenced to imprisonment for term
We see but little warrant for qualifying the word term  by the adjective fixed  which is not to be round in section 428
The assumption that the word term  implies a concept of ascertainability or conveys a sence of certainty ii contrary to the letter of the laws  as we find it in that section Even the marginal note to the section does not bear out that assumption
It rather belies it
And  marginal notes are now legislative and not editorial exercises
The marginal note of section 428 shows that the object of the Legislature in enacting the particular provision was to provide that the period of detention undergone by the accused  should be set off against the sentence of imprisonment  imposed upon him
There are no words of limitation either in the section or in its marginal note which would justify restricting the plain and natural meaning of the word term so as to comprehend only sentences which are imposed for a fixed or ascertainable period
To say that a sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon an 1   444
749 accused is a sentence for the term of his life does offence neither to grammar nor to the common understanding of the word term 
To say otherwise offend not only against the language of the statute but against the spirit of the law  that is to say  the object with which the law was passed
A large number of cases in which the accused suffer long undertrial detentions are cases punishable with imprisonment for life
Usually  those who are liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for life are not enlarged on bail
To deny the benefit of section 428 to them is to withdraw the application of a benevolent provision from a large majority of cases in which such benefit would be needed and justified
Arguments and counter arguments were advanced before us on the basis of provisions contained in sections 53  53A4a and b  57  65 and 511 of the Penal Code
The provision contained in section 57 that imprisonment foF life has to be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years is for the purpose of calculating fractions of terms of punishment
We cannot press that provision into service for a wider purpose
Nor  indeed  can we draw sustenance to our conclusion from the provision contained in section 51 I to the effect that whoever attempts to commit an offense punishable with imprisonment for life shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one half of the imprisonment for life
The argument of Shri Mukul Mudgal that if one half of life imprisonment is a term exhypothesi  life imprisonment would be a term of imprisonment is attractive but slender
But  equally  we do not consider that anything contained in the rest of the sections above noted  militates against the view which we have taken
The modalities for working out the provision contained in section 428 in cases of persons sentenced to imprisonment for life should not present any serious difficulty in practice
In the first place  by reason of section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law  or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under section 433 to one of imprisonment for life such person cannot be released from prison unless he has served at least fourteen years of imprisonment
The only point to note is 750 that while upholding the constitutional validity of section 433A  it was held by this Court in Maru Ram vs Union of India  1 that the section is prospective in operation  with the result that it cannot apply to cases which were decided by the trial Cout before December 18  1978  being the date on which the section came into force mind is the one arising out of the judgment of this Court in Gopal Vinayak Godsease
It was held by a Constitution Bench in that case that a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment is bound to serve the a remainder of his life in prison unless the sentence imposed upon him is commuted or remitted by the appropriate authority
It was further held that since such a sentence could not be equated with any fixed term  the Rules framed under the Prison Act entitled such a person to earn remissions but that  such remissions were to be taken into account only towards the end of the term
Under section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure  the appropriate Government has the power to remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which a person has been sentenced
Under section 433 of the Code  the appropriate Government has the power  inter alia  to commute the sentence of imprisonment for life to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years to fine
The question of setting off the period of detention undergone by an accused as an undertrial prisoner against the sentence of life imprisonment can arise only if an order is passed by the appropriate authority under section 432 or section 433 of the Code
In the absence of such order  passed generally or specially  and apart from the provisions  if any of the relevant Jail Maunal  imprisonment for life would mean  according to the rule in Gopal Vinayak Godse  imprisonment for the remainder of life
The two cases before us were referred to a larger Bench because of the doubt entertained as regards the correctness of the decision in Kartar Singh  especially because of the apparently conflicting view taken by another Bench of this Court in Sukhlal Hansda vs State of West Bengal
Both of those decisions were rendered by a three judge Bench
In Kartar Singh  persons who were sentenced to life imprisonment challenged an order passed 1 l981 1 SCR  1196
751 by the Government of Haryana  denying to them the benefit of the period of undertrial detention under section 428 of the Code
It was held by this Court that the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code make a clear distinction between imprisonment for life  and imprisonment for a term  and  in fact  the two expressions are used in contradistinction with each other in one and the same section  the former meaning imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of the convict and the latter meaning imprisonment for a definite or fixed period
The Court proceeded to hold that an order of remission passed by the appropriate authority merely affects the execution of the sentence passed by the Court  without interfering with the sentence passed or recorded by the Court
Therefore  section 428 which opens with the words where an accused person has  on conviction  been sentenced to imprisonment for a term  would come into play in cases where imprisonment for a term  is awarded on conviction by a court and not where the sentence imposed upon an accused becomes a sentence for a term by reason of the remission granted by the appropriate authority
Finally  according to the Court  the question is not whether the beneficent provision should be extended to life convicts on a priori reasoning or equitable consideration but whether on true construction  the section comprises life convicts within its purview
The Court found support to its view in the objects and reasons for introducing section 428 in the Code  as set out in the Report of the Joint Committee
We have considered with great care the reasoning upon which the decision in Kartar Singh proceeds
With respect  we are unable to agree with the decision
We have already discussed why imprisonment for life is imprisonment for a term  within the meaning of section 428
We would like to add that we find it difficult to agree that the expressions imprisonment for life  and imprisonment for a term  are used either in the Penal Code or in the Criminal Procedure Code in contra distinction with each other
Sections 304  305  307 and 391 of the penal Code undoubtedly provide that persons quilty of the respective offences shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for a term not exceeding a certain number of years
But  that is the only manner in which the Legislature could have expressed its intention that persons who are guilty of those offences shall be punished with either of the sentences mentioned in the respective sections
The 752 circumstance on which the learned judges have placed reliance in Kartar Singh  do not afford any evidence  intrinsic or otherwise  of the use of the two expressions in contra distinction with each other
Two or more expressions are often used in the same section in order to exhaust the alternatives which are available to the Legislature
That does not mean that there is  necessarily  an antithesis between those expressions
The reasoning in Kartar Singh that an order of remission does not interfere with the sentence recorded by the court but merely affects the execution of the sentence  stands answered by the interpretation which we have put upon the language of section 428 that persons sentenced to imprisonment for life are sentenced to imprisonment for a term
It is not because of remission that a sentence of life imprisonment becomes an imprisonment for a term
We have also already answered the last of the reasons given in Kartar Singh that the question is not whether the beneficent provision contained in section 428 should be extended to life convicts on equitable considerations
We enter a most respectful caveat
Equity sustains law and the twain must meet
They cannot run in parallel streams
Equitable considerations must have an important place in the construction of beneficent provisions  particularly in the field of criminal law
To exclude such considerations is to denude law s benevolence Or its true and lasting content
Lastly  the view expressed by the Joint Committee in its Report does not yield to the inference that the mischief sought to be remedied has no relevance where gravity of offence requires the imposition of imprisonment for life
As we have indicated earlier  graver the crime  longer the sentence and  longer the sentence  greater the need for set offs and remissions
Punishments are no longer retributory
They are reformative
The order passed by this Court in Sukhlal Hansda related to the cases of 24 prisoners who were sentenced to life imprisonment
Most of those prisoners had undergone imprisonment for a period which  after taking account the remissions earned by them  exceeded fourteen years
It was held by this Court that  for the purpose of considering whether the cases of those prisoners should be examined for premature release under the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Jail Manual  there was no reason why the period of 753 imprisonment undergone by them as undertrial prisoners should not be taken into account
The Court directed that the cases of the prisoners should be considered by the State Government  both for the purpose of setting off the period of detention undergone by them as undertrial prisoners and for taking into account the remissions earned by them
The order passed by the Court does not discuss the point which arises before us though  the observations made therein are consistent more with the view which we have taken than with the view taken in Kartar Singh
For these reasons  we allow the appeal and the writ petition and direct that  the period of detention undergone by the two accused before us as undertrial prisoners  shall be set off against the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon them  subject to the provision contained in section 433A and  provided that order have been passed by the appropriate authority under section 432 or section 433 of the Code of Criminal procedure
NVK Petion and Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court  contending that his case be referred for the order of the State Administration under Paragraph 516 of the Punjab Jail Manual  on the  ground that though sentenced to life imprisonment  he had under gone a period of detention in Jail amounting to 14 years together with the remission earned by him and that he should be released
The aforesaid petition was rejected by a Single Judge following the decision of this Court in Kartar Singh vs State of Haryana   on the ground
That in computing the period of 14 years  the period spent by the convict in the jail as an undertrial prisoner cannot be taken into account because section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which allowed such a set off applied only when an accused had sentenced to imprisonment for a term   and that the sentence of life imprisonment was not an imprisonment for a term 
In the companion writ petition  the petitioner contended that the remis 744 sions 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  and that in any case  ht ought to be given the benefit of sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because  his case merits a favorable consideration by the State Administration
Allowing the Appeal and Writ Petition   HELD 1
The period of detention undergone by the two accused as undertrial prisoners  shall be set off against the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon them  subject to the provision contained in section 433A and  provided that orders have been passed by the appropriate authority under section 432 or section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
753C D 2
The fact that the term of life is of an uncertain duration does not justify the conclusion that the sentence of imprisonment for life
is not for a term 
752C 3 There can possibly be no dispute that a person sentenced to life imprisonment is sentenced to imprisonment
The term to which such person has been sentenced b the term of his life Therefore a person who is sentenced to life imprisonment  is sentenced to imprisonment for a term
752C 4
Under section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure  the appropriate Government has the power to remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which a person has been sentenced
Under section 433 of the Code  the appropriate Government has the power to commute the sentence of imprisonment for life to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen year or to fine
The question of setting off the period of detention undergone by an accused as an undertrial prisoner against the sentence of life imprisonment can arise only if an order is passed by the appropriate authority under r section 432 or section 433 of the Code
In the absence of such an order passed generally or specially  and apart from the provisions if any  of the relevant Jail Manual  imprisonment for life would mean imprisonment for remainder of life
750D F 5
The assumption that the word term  implies a concept of ascertainability or conveys a sense of certainty is contrary to the letter of the law  as found in section 428
Even the marginal note to the section does not bear out that assumption
It rather belies it
748F 6
Marginal notes are now legislative and not editorial exercises
The marginal note of section 428 shows that the object of the Legislature in enacting the particular provision was to provide that the period of detention undergone by the accused  should be set off against the sentence of imprisonment  imposed upon him
There are no words of limitation either in the section or in its marginal note which would justify restricting the plain and natural meaning of 745 the word term  so as to comprehend only sentences which are imposed for a fixed or ascertainable period
748F G 7
To say that a sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon an accused is a sentence for the term of his life does offence neither to grammar nor to the common understanding of the word term 
To say otherwise would offend not only against the language of the statute but against the spirit of the law  that is to say  the object with which the law was passed
A large number of cases in which the accused suffer long undertrial detentions are cases punishable with imprisonment for life
Usually  those who are liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for life are not enlarged on bail
To deny the benefit of section 428 to them is to withdraw the application of a benevolent provision from a large majority of cases in which such benefit would be needed and justified
748H 748A B 8
Equity sustains law and the twain must meet
They cannot run in parallel streams
Equitable considerations must have an important place in the construction of beneficient provisions  particularly in the field of criminal law
To exclude such considerations is to denude law s benevolence of its true and lasting content
752F 9
Graver the crime  longer the sentences  greater the need for set offs and remissions
Punishments are no longer retributory
They are reformative
752F Kartar Singh vs State of Haryana  over ruled  Sukhlal Hansda vs State of West Bengal Writ Petitions Crl 1128 29 of 1982  Gopal Vinayak Godse vs The Slate of Maharashtra l961 3 SCR 440  444  Maru Ram vs Union of India 1981 I SCR 1196 referred