Habeas corpus type writ -as her husband in imprisonment more than 20 years as her mercy petitions were rejected twice made – meaning of life imprisonment reiterated that unless properly remitted by competent authority, life imprisonment means imprisonment for entire lifetime of convict – No court set him free beyond the law with out remission by appropriate authority= ARJUN JADAV … PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41723

Habeas corpus type writ -as her husband – in imprisonment – more than 20 years as her mercy petitions were rejected twice made  – meaning  of  life  imprisonment  reiterated  that unless properly remitted by competent  authority,  life  imprisonment  means imprisonment for entire lifetime of convict – No court set him free beyond the law with out remission by appropriate authority  =

In the meantime, the petitioner has undergone custody  for  more  than

20 years including the period of remission and  about  17  years  of  actual

custody and,  therefore,  it  is  alleged  that  his  detention  has  become

unlawful and illegal.

in  Life  Convict  Bangal  alias

Khoka alias Prasanta Sen v. B.K. Srivastava and others, (2013)  3  SCC  425,

This Court while  defined  meaning  of  life  imprisonment  reiterated  that

unless properly remitted by competent  authority,  life  imprisonment  means

imprisonment for entire lifetime of convict =

In the present case, the mercy petitions  filed  by  the  petitioner’s

wife were rejected twice. 

The case of the petitioner was considered  by  the

Review Board constituted by the State of West  Bengal,  which  rejected  the

prayer. 

Therefore, no relief can be granted by this Court under  Article  32

of the Constitution of  India.  

However,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the

petitioner has actually undergone more than 18 years  of  imprisonment;  the

Superintendant. Alipore Central  Jail  of  his  own  wrote  a  letter  dated

18.09.2003 requested for reconsideration of the case of the  petitioner  and

recommended release of the petitioner. 

We  are  of  the  view  that  if  any

application for remission is filed by the petitioner or  on  behalf  of  the

petitioner, the Competent Authority place the same before the  Review  Board

and which will reconsider the case of the petitioner for  premature  release

in accordance with law and guidelines issued by the State.  

The  appropriate

Government would be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance  with

law.

15.   The petitioner was released on bail by an order passed by  this  Court

on 7.01.2005. We vacate that order. The respondents would be at  liberty  to

take the  petitioner  into  custody  and  as  regards  remission  the  State

Government may pass any appropriate order in accordance with law.

16.   The Writ Petition is dismissed with aforesaid observations.

2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41723 – for full text – LAW FOR ALL