Case: Sambha Ji Krishan Ji Vs. State of Maharashtra

1. This petition for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus under Article 32 of the Constitution is entirely devoid of merits. Facts are these. The petitioner was tried by the Sessions Judge, Sholapur, for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. in the Sessions Trial No. 34 of 1946. By the judgment dated November 23, 1946 he was convicted and sentenced to transportation for life. He filed an appeal in the High Court of Bombay. It was dismissed on December 2, 1946. He was admitted in the Yerwada prison on December 24, 1946. Therefrom he was released on furlough on April 24, 1949, but he did not surrender on the due date. He was arrested on August 31, 1949. Once again he was released on parole on December 23, 1950, and he repeated his earlier conduct. He became scarce. He was arrested on November 3, 1965 and sent to the Yerwada prison on November 4, 1965. He is now undergoing the unexpired portion of his sentence.

Reasoning:
4. The petitioner has not disclosed in his petition in this Court that his petition has been dismissed by the High Court. The same three points have been recanvassed before us. In the face of the judgment of the High Court we cannot accept them. There could be hardly any dispute that he is the person who was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Sholapur in the Sessions Trial No. 34 of 1946 to transportation for life. Counsel for the State has shown us a copy of the judgment of the Sessions Judge. That judgment shows that he was sentenced to transportation for life and not to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. As regards the third contention, the legal position is that a person sentenced to transportation for life may be detained in prison for life. Accordingly, this Court cannot interfere on the mere ground that if the period of remission claimed by him is taken into account, he is entitled to be released. It is for the Government to decide whether he should be given any remissions and whether he should be released earlier.