{"id":102949,"date":"1991-08-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1991-08-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-territory-of-chandigarh-on-23-august-1991"},"modified":"2017-05-13T07:25:29","modified_gmt":"2017-05-13T01:55:29","slug":"ranjit-singh-vs-union-territory-of-chandigarh-on-23-august-1991","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-territory-of-chandigarh-on-23-august-1991","title":{"rendered":"Ranjit Singh vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh & … on 23 August, 1991"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ranjit Singh vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh & … on 23 August, 1991<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 2296, \t\t 1991 SCR (3) 742<\/div>\n
Author: J S Verma<\/div>\n
Bench: Verma, Jagdish Saran (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRANJIT SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT23\/08\/1991\n\nBENCH:\nVERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)\nBENCH:\nVERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)\nVENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)\nOJHA, N.D. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1991 AIR 2296\t\t  1991 SCR  (3) 742\n 1991 SCC  (4) 304\t  JT 1991 (3)\t550\n 1991 SCALE  (2)396\n\n\nACT:\n Code  of  Criminal  Procedure, 1973:  Ss.  427,  433A--Life\nconvict\t --Convicted of another murder--Subsequent  Sentence\nof life imprisonment--Whether superimposition to the earlier\nlife sentence-Remissions or commutation in respect of earli-\ner  sentence--Whether  available ipso facto  in\t respect  of\nSecond sentence.\n    Indian Penal Code, 1960: S. 302--Life convict--Trial for\nsecond\t    murder--Conviction--Imposition\tOf\tLife\nsentence--Whether both life sentences to run concurrently.\n    Constitution of India: Article  32--Offender--Separately\nsentenced  to life imprisonment for two\t different  offences\nunder  section\t302 IPC--Court's direction that in  case  of\nremissions  or commutation in respect of  earlier  sentence,\nthe  latter sentenced to run  thereafter-Interpretation\t of-\nWrit  Petition challenging the\tsentence--Whether  maintain-\nable.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t petitioner who was convicted under section  302-IPC\non  6.3.1979  and sentenced to life imprisonment;  was\talso\ntried  for a second murder committed while he was on  parole\nafter his conviction and sentence for the first murder,\t and\nwas convicted under s. '303 IPC. Altering the conviction  to\none  under  s.\t302 IPC, for the second\t murder\t this  Court\nsentenced him to life imprisonment instead of death sentence\nand  by its judgment dated 30.9.1983 directed that  in\tcase\nany  remission\tand commutation in respect  of\this  earlier\nsentence  'was granted, the latter sentence should  commence\nthereafter.\n    The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of\nthe Constitution. praying for his release on the ground that\nboth  the life sentences had to run concurrently in  accord-\nance  with s. 1427(2) Cr. P.C., and as he had  undergone  14\nyears  sentence of imprisonment with remissions at the\ttime\nof  filing the writ petition on .February 19, 1990,  he\t was\nentitled to be released.'It was contended that this  Court's\ndirec, tion dated 30.9.83 was .contrary to s. 427(2) of\t the\nCode of Criminal\n743\nProcedure, 1973 since it amounted to directing that the\t two\nsentences of life imprisonment were to run consecutively and\nnot concurrently.\nOn  behalf  of\tthe respondents it was\tcontended  that\t the\ndirection of this\t Court, properly construed, was\t not\ncontrary to.s. 427(2) Cr. P.C. and, therefore, the  question\nof  issuing any writ or directions as claimed by  the  peti-\ntioners did not arise.\n    Disposing of the petition treating it as one for  clari-\nfication of the judgment dated 30.9.1983 this Court,\n    HELD:  1.1\tA  sentence of transportation  for  life  or\nimprisonment for life must prima facie be treated as  trans-\nportation  or  imprisonment for the whole of  the  remaining\nperiod\tof  the convicted person's natural life\t unless\t the\nremaining sentence is 'commuted or remitted by the appropri-\nate  authority. This being so at the stage of sentencing  by\nthe  Court on a subsequent conviction, the earlier  sentence\nof  imprisonment for life must be understood in this  manner\nand,  therefore,  there can b no question  of  a  subsequent\nsentence  of  imprisonment for a term or  for  life  running\nconsecutively  which is the general rule laid down in  sub-s\n(1) ors. 427, Cr. P.C. [747G; 749D-E]\n    1.2 The earlier sentence of imprisonment-for life  being\nunder  stood to mean as sentence to serve the  remainder  of\nlife in prison unless commuted or remitted by the  appropri-\nate  authority and a person having only one life  span,\t the\nsentence  on a subsequent conviction of imprisonment  for  a\nterm  or imprisonment for life as envisaged by s. 427(2)  of\nthe  Cr. P.C., can only be superimposed to the earlier\tlife\nsentence  and certainly not added to it since extending\t the\nlife  span  of\tthe offender or for that  matter  anyone  is\nbeyond human might. [749F-G]\n    It\tcannot be said that a sentence of life\timprisonment\nis  to\tb treated asasentence of imprisonment  for  a  fixed\nterm. [748B]\n    Gopal  Vinayak Godse v. The Stateof Maharashtra &  Ors.,<\/a>\n[1961]\t3 S.C.R. 440 and MaruRam v. Union of India  &  Anr.,\n[1981] 1 S.C.R 1196, followed.\n    2.1\t The operation of the superimposed  subsequent\tsen-\ntence  of Iife imprisonment should not be wiped\t out  merely\nbecause in respect of to correspondingI earlier sentence  of\nlife  imprisonment any remission or commutation was  granted\nby the appropriate.authority. [75lF-G]\n744\n    2.2 In the instant case, the last sentence in the direc-\ntion  meant that in case, any remission or  commutation\t was\ngranted in. respect. of the earlier sentence of life impris-\nonment alone then the benefit of that remission or  commuta-\ntion  would  not ipso facto be available in respect  of\t the\nsubsequent sentence of life imprisonment which would contin-\nue  to\tbe  unaffected by the remission\t or  commutation  in\nrespect of the earlier sentence alone. The consequence would\nbe  that the petitioner would not get any practical  benefit\nof  any remission or commutation in respect of\this  earlier\nsentence  because of the superimposed subsequent  life\tsen-\ntence  unless the same corresponding benefit in\t respect  of\nthe subsequent sentence was also granted to the\t petitioner.\nIt was in this manner that the direction 'was given for\t the\ntwo sentences of life imprisonment not to run  concurrently.\n[750E-H; 751A]\n    The\t subsequent sentence of imprisonment for  life\thad,\ntherefore, to run concurrently with the earlier sentence  of\nimprisonment for life awarded to the petitioner. [750C-D]\n    3. The general rule enunciated in sub,section (1) of  s.\n427  Cr.  P.C.\tis that without the  Court's  direction\t the\nsubsequent  sentence will not run concurrently but  consecu-\ntively. [749G]\n    The only situation in which no direction of the Court is\nneeded to make the subsequent sentence run concurrently with\nthe  previous  sentence iS provided for in  sub,section\t (2)\nwhich  has  been enacted to avoid any  possible\t controversy\nbased on sub,section (1) if there being no express direction\nof the Court to that effect. [749G-H; 750A]\n    Sub,section (2) is in the nature of an exception to\t the\ngeneral\t rule enacted under sub-section (1) of\tsection\t 427\n0Cr. P.C. [T50A]\n    4.1 The mandatory minimum of 14 years' actual  imprison-\nment prescribed by s. 433A Cr. P.C. which has supremacy over\nthe  Remission Rules and short-sentencing statutes  made  by\nthe  various  States would not operate against\tthose  whose\ncases were decided by the trial court before the 18th Decem-\nber,  1978  when s. 433A Cr. P.C.'came into  force  but\t the\nsection\t would apply to those sentenced by the\ttrial  court\nafter 18.12.1978 even though the offence was committed prior\nto that date. [748D-E]\n    Maru Ram v. Union of India & Anr., [1981] 1 S.C.R. 1196,\nfollowed.\t\t\t\t\t\t   .\n745\n    4.2 In the instant case, s. 433A Cr. P.C. was applicable\nto petitioner in respect of both sentences of life imprison-\nment  since the conviction by the trial court even  for\t the\nfirst murder was after 18.12.1978, the second offence itself\nbeing committed after 18.12.1978.  The mandatory minimum  of\n14years' actual imprisonment as required by s. 433A even for\nthe  first sentence of life imprisonment was not served\t out\nby  the\t petitioner,  and, therefore,  irrespective  of\t the\npoints\traised\tin the instant petition on the basis  of  s.\n427(2)\tCr. P.C. the petitioner could not claim relief\tmuch\nless  a\t writ under Article 32 of the  Constitution  in\t the\nabsence\t of  the remaining sentence being  remitted  by\t the\nGovernment. [748E-G]\n    5.\tThe petitioner's incarceration was the result  of  a\nvalid judicial order and, therefore, there could be no valid\nclaim  to  the infringement of any fundamental\tright  which\nalone could be the foundation for a writ under Article 32 of\nthe Constitution. [747E-F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 116 of
\n1990.\n<\/p>\n
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
\n    R.K. Garg, N.D. Garg, Rajiv Kr. Garg and P.C.  Choudhary
\nfor the Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
U.R. Lalit and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal for the Respondents.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    VERMA, J. The short question arising for decision by  us
\nis the true meaning of Sub-section (2) of Section 427 of the
\nCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and its effect.
\n    For\t an  Offence of murder committed  on  17.9.1978\t the
\npetitioner,  Ranjit Singh, was convicted under\tSection\t 302
\nI.P.C.\tby the Sessions Judge on 6..3.1979 and sentenced  to
\nlife  imprisonment which was confirmed by the High Court  of
\nPunjab\t& Haryana. While the petitioner was on parole  after
\nhis  conviction and sentence for first murder, he was  tried
\nfor  the  second murder committed On October  25,  1980\t and
\nconvicted  under  Section  303 I.P.C.  This  conviction\t was
\naltered\t to one under Section 302 I.P.C. and for the  second
\nmurder,\t also the petitioner was sentenced by this Court  on
\n30.9.  1983 to life imprisonment instead of death  sentence.
\nThis  Court while disposing of the. petitioner’s appeal,  in
\nthis manner, directed as under:\n<\/p>\n
746<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      “We  feel that life imprisonment would be\t the
\n\t      proper  sentence that should  be\timposed-upon
\n\t      the  appellant.  We  accordingly\treduce\t the
\n\t      sentence\tof death imposed upon him and,\tsen-
\n\t      tence him to suffer rigorous imprisonment\t for
\n\t      life.  However, since the present\t murder\t was
\n\t      committed by him within a span of one year  of
\n\t      his  earlier conviction and that too  when  he
\n\t      was released .on parole we are clearly of\t the
\n\t      view that the instant sentence of imprisonment
\n\t      for life awarded to him should not run concur-
\n\t      rently  with  his\t earlier  sentence  Of\tlife
\n\t      imprisonment.  We\t therefore, direct  that  in
\n\t      case  any remission or commutation in  respect
\n\t      of his earlier sentence is granted to him\t the
\n\t      present sentence should .commence thereafter.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The petitioner has now filed this Writ Petition under  Arti-
\ncle  32 of the Constitution for issuance of a suitable\twrit
\nor  direction  to correct,the above direction given  in\t the
\n0order\tdated September 30, 1983 to bring it  in  consonance
\nwith  Section 427(2) Cr. P.C. and consequently for  his\t re-
\nlease  on  the ground that both life sentences\thad  to\t run
\nconcurrently in accordance with Section 427(2) Cr. P.C.\t and
\nhe  is entitled to relief because he has undergone  fourteen
\nyears  sentence of imprisonment with remissions at the\ttime
\nof  filing the Writ Petition on February 19, 1990.  This  is
\nhow the question of construction of Section 427(2) Cr.\tP.C.
\narises in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  is  as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t“427.  Sentence on offender  already
\n\t      sentenced\t for  another  offence–(1)  When  a
\n\t      person  already undergoing a sentence  of\t im-
\n\t      prisonment  is sentenced on a subsequent\tcon-
\n\t      viction  to imprisonment or  imprisonment\t for
\n\t      life,  such imprisonment’ or imprisonment\t for
\n\t      life  shall commence at the expiration of\t the
\n\t      imprisonment  to which he has been  previously
\n\t      sentenced,  unless the Court directs that\t the
\n\t      subsequent  sentence  shall  run\tconcurrently
\n\t      with such previous sentence:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Provided\tthat where a person, who  has,\tbeen
\n\t      sentenced\t to imprisonment by an\torder  under
\n\t      Section 122 in default of furnishing  security
\n\t      is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced
\n\t      to imprisonment for an offence committed prior
\n\t      to  the making of such order, the latter\tsen-
\n\t      tence shall commence immediately.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      747<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t\t(2) When a person already undergoing
\n\t      a\t sentence of imprisonment for life  is\tsen-
\n\t      tenced on a subsequent conviction to.  impris-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      onment  for a term or imprisonment  for  life,
\n\t      the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently
\n\t      with such previous Sentence .’ ‘
\nShri  R.K. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner  strenu-
\nously urged that this Court’s above quoted direction in\t the
\njudgment  dated 30.9.1983 passed in Criminal Appeal No.\t 418
\nof  1982  while affirming the conviction under\tSection\t 302
\nI.P.C. for the second murder and imposing the punishment  of
\nlife imprisonment for it ‘also amounts to directing that the
\ntwo sentences of life imprisonment are tO run  consecutively
\nand  not concurrently which is in direct conflict with\tSub-
\nsection (2) of Section 427 Cr. P.C. He ,urged that the\tlife
\n‘span  of  a  person Could be only one\tand  therefore\t,any
\nsubsequent  life  sentence  must run  concurrently  and\t not
\nconsecutively which is the clear mandate :of Section 427(2).
\nOn this basis, it was, urged that this Court’s direction  in
\nthe  above  manner on the petitioner’S\tconviction  for\t the
\nsecond\toffence of murder is contrary-to Section  427(2)  of
\nthe  Code 01 Criminal Procedure, 1973. This is the basis  of
\nthe reliefs claimed on behalf of the .petitioner. In  reply,
\nShri  U.R. Lalit. appearing. on behalf of respondents,\tcon-
\ntended\tthat the direction of this Court properly  construed
\nis  not contrary to Section 427(2) Cr. P.C. and,  therefore,
\nthe  question of issuing any writ or directions\t claimed  by
\nthe petitioner does not arise.\n<\/p>\n
    We\tmay straightaway mention that the question of  grant
\nof  relief  under Article 32 of the  Constitution  does\t not
\narise on the above facts. The petitioner’s incarceration  is
\nthe result of a valid judicial order and, therefore,’  there
\ncan be no valid claim to the infringement of any fundamental
\nright  which  alone can be the foundation for a\t writ  under
\nArticle\t 32 of the COnstitution. The only question,  it\t ap-
\npears,\ttherefore, is about the correct construction of\t the
\ndirection  given  by  this  Court  in  its  judgment   dated
\n30.9.1983 in Criminal Appeal No. 418 of 1982 in the fight of
\nthe true meaning of Section427(2) Cr. P.C.
\n    The meaning of a sentence of imprisonment for life is no
\nlonger\tres integra; It was held by a Constitution Bench  in
\nGopal Vinayak Godse v. The State of Maharashtra and  Others,<\/a>
\n[1961]\t3 S:C.R. 440 that a sentence of\t transportation\t for
\nlife or imprisonment for life must prima facie be treated as
\ntransportation Or imprisonment for the whole of the  remain-
\ning  period of the convicted person’s natural life.  It\t was
\nfurther held:\n<\/p>\n
748<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t\t“Unless the said sentence is commut-
\n\t      ed or remitted by appropriate authority  under
\n\t      the  relevant provisions of the  Indian  Penal
\n\t      Code  or\tthe Code of  Criminal  Procedure,  a
\n\t      prisoner\tsentenced  to life  imprisonment  is
\n\t      bound  in\t law  to  serve\t the  life  term  in
\n\t      prison.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  contention that a sentence of life imprisonment was  to
\nbe  treated as a sentence of imprisonment for a\t fixed\tterm
\nwas expressly rejected. This view was followed and reiterat-
\ned  in\tMaru Ram v. Union of India & Ant., [1981]  1  S.C.R.
\n1196 while considering the effect of Section 433A introduced
\nin  the\t Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with\teffect\tfrom
\n18.12.1978.  The Constitution Bench in Maru  Ram  summarised
\none of its conclusions as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “We  follow Godse’s case (supra) to hold\tthat
\n\t      imprisonment  for\t life lasts until  the\tlast
\n\t      breath, and whatever the length of  remissions
\n\t      earned, the prisoner can claim release only if
\n\t      the remaining sentence is remitted by  Govern-
\n\t      ment.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Another conclusion in Maru Ram was that the mandatory  mini-
\nmum  of 14 years’ actual imprisonment prescribed by  Section
\n433A  which  has  supremacy over  the  Remission  Rules\t and
\nshort-sentencing  statutes made by the various\tStates\twill
\nnot  operate against those whose cases were decided  by\t the
\ntrial court before the 18th December, 1978 when Section 433A
\ncame  ‘into  force  but Section 433A would  apply  to  those
\nsentenced  ‘by the trial court after 18.12.1978 even  though
\nthe  offence  was committed prior to that date.\t From  these
\ndecisions  it  is obvious that the mandatory minimum  of  14
\nyears’.\t actual imprisonment prescribed by Section  433A  is
\napplicable  to\tpetitioner in respect of both  sentences  of
\nlife  imprisonment since the conviction by the\ttrial  court
\neven for the first murder was after 18.12.1.978, the  second
\noffence\t itself being committed after ‘18.12.1978. There  is
\nno  dispute that the mandatory minimum of 14  years’  actual
\nimprisonment, as required by Section 433A even for the first
\nsentence  of life imprisonment, has not been served  out  by
\nthe  petitioner and, therefore, irrespective of\t the  points
\nraised\tin this petition on the basis of Section 427(2)\t Cr.
\nP.C.  the  petitioner cannot claim relief much less  a\twrit
\nunder  Article 32 of the Constitution in the absence of\t the
\nremaining  sentence being remitted by the  Government.\tThis
\nalone is sufficient to refuse any relief under Article 32 of
\nthe Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
    The question now is of the meaning of Section 472(2) Cr.
\nP.C,  and  its effect, in the present case, in view  of\t the
\nabove quoted direc-\n<\/p>\n
749<\/span><\/p>\n
 tion Of this Court in its judgment dated 30.9.1983.
\n    Sub-section (1) of Section 427Cr. P.C. provides for\t the
\nsituation  when\t a person already undergoing a\tsentence  of
\nimprisonment  is  sentenced on a  subsequent  conviction  to
\nimprisonment  or  life imprisonment. In\t other\twords,\tSub-
\nsection\t (1) of Section 427 Cr. P.C. deals with an  offender
\nwho  while undergoing sentence for a fixed term\t is’  subse-
\nquently\t convicted to imprisonment for a fixed term  or\t for
\nlife.  In such a situation, the first sentence, being for  a
\nfixed  term, expires on a definite date which is known\twhen
\nthe  subsequent\t conviction is made., Sub-section  (1)\tsays
\nthat  in’ such a situation, the date of expiry of the  first
\nsentence  which\t the  offender is  undergoing  being  known,
\nordinarily  the\t subsequent sentence would commence  at\t the
\nexpiration  of\tthe first term of  imprisonment\t unless\t the
\nCourt  .directs the subsequent sentence to run\tconcurrently
\nwith the previous sentence. Obviously, in cases’ covered  by
\nSub-section (1)where the sentence is for a fixed’ term,\t the
\nsubsequent  sentence Can be consecutive unless\tdirected  to
\nrun  concurrently. Sub-section (2), on the other hand,\tpro-
\nvides  for  an\toffender “alreadly  undergoing\tsentence  of
\nimprisonment  for  life” who is sentenced  on  a  subsequent
\nconviction  to\timprisonment for a term or for life.  It  is
\nwell-settled  since  the  decision of this  Court  in  Gopal
\nVinayaka Godse and reiterated in Maru Ram that\timprisonment
\nfor life is a sentence for the remainder or the life of\t the
\noffender unless the remaining sentence is commuted or remit-
\nted by the appropriate authority. This being so at-the.stage
\nof  sentencing by the Court On a subsequent conviction,\t the
\nearlier sentence of imprisonment for life must be understood
\nin this manner and, therefore, there can be no question of a
\nsubsequent sentence of. impriosnment for a term or for\tlife
\nrunning consecutively which is the general rule laid down in
\nSub-.  section (1) of Section 427. As  rightly\tcontended’by
\nShri  Garg,  and  not disputed by Shri\tLalit,\tthe  earlier
\nsentence  of imprisonment for life being understood to\tmean
\nas sentence to serve the remainder of life in prison  unless
\ncommuted  or  remitted by the appropriate  authority  and  a
\nperson having only one life’ span, the sentence on a  subse-
\nquent conviction of imprisonment for a term or\timprisonment
\nfor  life can only be superimposed to the earlier life\tsen-
\ntence and certainly not added to it since extending the life
\nspan  of  the  offender\t or  for  that\t‘matter\t anyone\t  is
\nbeyond\t.human might. It is this obvious situation which  is
\nstated in sub-section (2) of Section 427 since the  general’
\nrule  enunciated in sub-section (1) thereof is that  without
\nthe  Court’s direction the subse-. quent sentence will.\t not
\nrun  concurrently, but consecutively. The only situation  in
\nwhich no direction of the Court is needed to make the subse-
\nquent  sentence run concurrently with the previous  sentence
\nis
\n750<\/span>
\nprovided  for in Sub-section (2) which has been\t enacted  to
\navoid any  possible controversy based on Sub-section. (1) if
\nthere be no express  direction of the Court to that  effect.
\nSub-section  (2)  is  in the nature of\tanexCeption  to\t the
\ngeneral\t rule  enacted in Sub-section (1)  of  Section\t 427
\nthat’a sentence on subsequent conviction commences on expiry
\nof  the\t first sentence unless the Court directs it  to\t run
\nconcurrently. The  meaning and purpose of Sub-sections (1) &
\n(2)of  Section 427 and the object of  en,acting\t Sub-section
\n?)is, therefore, Clear..\n<\/p>\n
We are not required to say anything regarding the practical.
\neffect\tof remission or commutation of the  sentences  since
\nthat  question\tdoes\tnot arise in the present  case.\t The
\nlimited\t controversy before us has been indicated. The\tonly
\nquestion  now  is of ‘the meaning and effect  of  the  above
\nquoted direction in this Court’s judgment dated 30.9.1983 It
\nis  obvious that the direction .of this Court must  be\tcon-
\nstrued\tto harmonise with Section 427(2) Cr. P.C.  which  is
\nthe  statutory mandate apart from being the  obvious  truth.
\nThe subsequent sentence of imprisonment for life has, there-
\nfore,  to  run\tconcurrently with the\tread  as  sentenceof
\nimprisonment  for  life\t awarded  to  the  petitioner.\tThed
\nexercise  is to construe the last sentence in the  direction
\nwhich re under:\n<\/p>\n
\t    “We, therefore, direct that in case any remission
\nor commutation .in respect of his earlier sentence is grant-
\ned to him the present sentence should commence thereafter.”
\nIt is in the background of this ultimate direction that\t the
\nproceeding portion has to be read. This last sentence in the
\ndirection  means that in case, any remission or\t commutation
\nis  granted  in respect of the earlier.\t sentence.  of\tlife
\nimprisonment  alone  then  the\tbenefit\t of  that  remission
\nor .commutation will not ipso facto be available in  respect
\nof  the\t sub. sequent sentence of  life\t imprisonment  which
\nwould continue to be unaffected by the remission or commuta-
\ntion  in  respect of the earlier sentence  alone.  In  other
\nWordS,\tthe  operation of the superimposed  subsequent\tsen-
\ntence, of life imprisonment shall not be wiped out   .merely
\nbecause in respect of the corresponding earlier sentence  of
\nlife  imprisonment  any remission or  commutation  has\tbeen
\ngranted\t by  the appropriate authority. The  consequence  is
\nthat  the petitioner would  not ‘get any practical  ‘benefit
\nof  any\t remission  or commutation respect  of\this  earlier
\nsentence  because of the superimposed subsequent  life\tsen-
\ntence  unless the same corresponding benefit in\t respect  of
\nthe subsequent sentence. is also .granted tO the petitioner.
\nIt  is in this manner that the direction is given  for\tthe,
\ntwo Sentences of life impri-\n<\/p>\n
751<\/span><\/p>\n
sonment not to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
    The ultimate direction contained in the last sentence is
\nobviously  for this purpose. So construed the  direction  of
\nthis  Court  in\t the judgment dated  30.9.1983\tin  Criminal
\nAppeal No. 418 of 1982 fully harmonises with Section  427(2)
\nCr.  P.C. This is the clarification we make of this  Court’s
\njudgment  dated\t 30.9. 1983 in Criminal Appeal No. 4  18  of
\n1982.\n<\/p>\n
    We\thave  already  stated that this\t petition  ‘for\t the
\nissuance  of a writ Under Article 32 of the Constitution  is
\nuntenable. We have, there-\n<\/p>\n
‘  fore, treated it as a petition for clarification  of\t the
\njudgment dated 30.9.1983 in Criminal Appeal No. 418 of 1982.
\nAccordingly, the petition is disposed of with this  clarifi-
\ncation.\n<\/p>\n
R.P.\t\t\t\t\t Petition disposed\nof.\n752<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ranjit Singh vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh & … on 23 August, 1991 Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 2296, 1991 SCR (3) 742 Author: J S Verma Bench: Verma, Jagdish Saran (J) PETITIONER: RANJIT SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT23\/08\/1991 BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-102949","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRanjit Singh vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh & ... on 23 August, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-territory-of-chandigarh-on-23-august-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ranjit Singh vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh & ... on 23 August, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-territory-of-chandigarh-on-23-august-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1991-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-13T01:55:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-territory-of-chandigarh-on-23-august-1991#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-territory-of-chandigarh-on-23-august-1991\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ranjit Singh vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh & … on 23 August, 1991\",\"datePublished\":\"1991-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-13T01:55:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-territory-of-chandigarh-on-23-august-1991\"},\"wordCount\":2421,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-territory-of-chandigarh-on-23-august-1991#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-territory-of-chandigarh-on-23-august-1991\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-territory-of-chandigarh-on-23-august-1991\",\"name\":\"Ranjit Singh vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh & ... on 23 August, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1991-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-13T01:55:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-territory-of-chandigarh-on-23-august-1991#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-territory-of-chandigarh-on-23-august-1991\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-territory-of-chandigarh-on-23-august-1991#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ranjit Singh vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh & … on 23 August, 1991\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ranjit Singh vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh & ... on 23 August, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-territory-of-chandigarh-on-23-august-1991","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ranjit Singh vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh & ... on 23 August, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-territory-of-chandigarh-on-23-august-1991","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1991-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-13T01:55:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-territory-of-chandigarh-on-23-august-1991#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-territory-of-chandigarh-on-23-august-1991"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ranjit Singh vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh & … on 23 August, 1991","datePublished":"1991-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-13T01:55:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-territory-of-chandigarh-on-23-august-1991"},"wordCount":2421,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-territory-of-chandigarh-on-23-august-1991#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-territory-of-chandigarh-on-23-august-1991","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-territory-of-chandigarh-on-23-august-1991","name":"Ranjit Singh vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh & ... on 23 August, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1991-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-13T01:55:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-territory-of-chandigarh-on-23-august-1991#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-territory-of-chandigarh-on-23-august-1991"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-territory-of-chandigarh-on-23-august-1991#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ranjit Singh vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh & … on 23 August, 1991"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102949","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=102949"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102949\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=102949"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=102949"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=102949"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}