THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.25575 of 2009 Date: 20.04.2010 Between: Satuluri Chalapathi Rao … Petitioner and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Prisons) Department, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.25575 of 2009 ORAL ORDER : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents. 2. This Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed by the mother of the petitioner directing the respondents to produce the petitioner before this Court and set him at liberty, forthwith, by declaring that his continued deention for uncertain period as illegal and void. 3. The petitioner is accused in S.C.No.662 of 1993 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. By judgment, dated 7.9.1995, he was convicted for the offence under Sections 302, 120-B, 392, 307, 341, 440 IPC and was awarded death sentence, which was confirmed by this Court and the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the said death sentence was commuted for life imprisonment by the President of India exercising the jurisdiction under Article 72 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petitioner has been undergoing life imprisonment in Central Prison, Rajahmundry. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he has completed more than 21 years of sentence and having regard to Section 57 of I.P.C., 20 years imprisonment was equivalent to a sentence of transportation for life. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released. 4. Now, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the nominal roll at Central Prison, Rajahmundry, as on 21.1.2007, at Col.No.7, the period of sentence of the petitioner was shown as 20 years. However, having completed more than 21 years of sentence, he is entitled to be released as per the entries in the jail records. 5. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that as per the nominal roll at Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, as on 5.9.2009, the period of sentence undergone by the petitioner was shown, which is as under: “(a) Actual sentence undergone by the petitioner is 13 years, 11 months 28 days. (b) Remand period is 2 years 5 months 18 days. (c) Remission is 4 years 7 months 20 days. (d) Total sentence undergone is 21 years 1 month 6 days.” 6. From the above, there appears to be a serious discrepancy between the entries made by two jail authorities insofar as the period of sentence undergone by the petitioner and also that the unexpired sentence was not shown in the nominal roll. 7. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sentence period is still for uncertain duration. Therefore, since the petitioner had already completed 21 years of sentence, he is entitled for remission. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has actually served, the aggregate would exceed 20 years and even the State remission was added to it, it would exceed 14 years and as per Section 55 IPC, “in every case in which sentence of transportation for life shall have been passed, the appropriate Government may, without the consent of the offender, commute the punishment for imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding fourteen years.” In support of his contention, the learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in PRAKASH DHAWAL KHAIRNAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[1]. 8. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.338, Home (Prisons.C) Department, dated 24.7.2009. Clause (ix) of para-4 of the said G.O. reads as under: 4. The remission of sentence in para (3) above shall also apply to prisoners, who have been convicted by Courts situated within State of Andhra Pradesh and are undergoing sentence in other States, but shall not apply to the following categories of prisoners, namely; (i) to (viii) ……….. (ix) Prisoners sentenced to death sentence, which is later commuted to life sentence. (x) ………..” 9. From the above clause of the said G.O., the prisoners sentenced to death sentence are not entitled for the remission. 10. In this context, it is to be noticed that the said G.O. was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, exercising its jurisdiction conferred under Section 432 read with 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974). A combined reading of the said provisions is that life sentence means till life, but not otherwise. 11. However, we are not prepared to go into all those aspects, inasmuch as the present writ petition has been filed basing on other grounds, as stated above, but not with reference to G.O.Ms.No.338, Home (Prisons.C) Department, dated 24.7.2009. Therefore, the case of the petitioner has to be considered separately. 12. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation, if not already made, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and the respondents are directed to forward the same to the appropriate authority, who shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders keeping in view the entire law in force as on the date. 13. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 20.04.2010. NOTE: Issue C.C. as expeditiously as possible. (B/O) Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.25575 of 2009 20.04.2010 (Msr) [1] AIR 2002 SC 340