IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR WJC No 705 of 2011 Upendra Yadav Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 3 10.08.2011 The petitioner has filed this writ in the shape of a writ of habeas corpus praying that his detention now has become illegal as he has served out the maximum sentence he can be awarded or required to serve. The facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are not in dispute and are noted as under : Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Court in the year, 1990. He was taken into custody and he has allegedly remained in custody serving out the said sentence since then. While he was still serving the said sentence, in another case in December 2004, he was again sentenced for five years rigorous imprisonment. He submits that since 1990, he has been in custody serving the sentence as awarded as life imprisonment in the first case and, as such, having completed twenty years in custody, he should have been released. Having not been released, he has filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out, with reference to Section 427 of the Criminal Procedure Code and, in particular, sub-section (2) thereof which is quoted hereunder to submit that the two sentences awarded to him, one which was life imprisonment and another which was five years rigorous imprisonment, would in terms of Section 427 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code be deemed to be running concurrently. “427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence.- (1) … … … (2) When a person already undergoing a 2 sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.” Thus, he submits that in view of Government circular and policy decision, prevalent and relevant for the purpose, he, having been physically in custody serving out the sentence for over twenty years now, must be released. We have considered the matter and so far as the legal submission is concerned, in our view, the stand of the petitioner is correct but so far as the State Government policy with reference to Section 433-A is concerned, the matter has to be examined by the appropriate Remission Board as that would require ascertaining and determining the facts with reference to policy as existing on the day when conviction and sentence was awarded. We, therefore, direct the petitioner to make an appropriate representation before the State Remission Board through proper channel giving all basic facts and we direct the Remission Board to conduct such enquiry, as it may deem fit and considering the policy, as was obtaining on the day when the conviction and the sentence was awarded, take appropriate decision in accordance with law within three months positively of the representation being received by it. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh) (Ashwani Kumar Singh) 3