{"id":249146,"date":"1982-08-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1982-08-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kartar-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-through-on-26-august-1982"},"modified":"2017-10-26T23:18:11","modified_gmt":"2017-10-26T17:48:11","slug":"kartar-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-through-on-26-august-1982","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kartar-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-through-on-26-august-1982","title":{"rendered":"Kartar Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana Through … on 26 August, 1982"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kartar Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana Through … on 26 August, 1982<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1982 AIR 1439, 1983 SCR (1) 445<\/div>\n
Author: V Tulzapurkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Tulzapurkar, V.D.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKARTAR SINGH AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF HARYANA THROUGH INSPECTOR .GENERAL OF PRISON, CHAND\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT26\/08\/1982\n\nBENCH:\nTULZAPURKAR, V.D.\nBENCH:\nTULZAPURKAR, V.D.\nISLAM, BAHARUL (J)\nMISRA, R.B. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1982 AIR 1439\t\t  1983 SCR  (1) 445\n 1982 SCC  (3)\t 1\t  1982 SCALE  (1)671\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1983 SC 855\t (2)\n R\t    1984 SC 739\t (5)\n O\t    1985 SC1050\t (2,12,13,TO,16)\n RF\t    1990 SC1336\t (7)\n\n\nACT:\n     Criminal Proccdure Code-s. 428-Applicability to persons\nsentenced to imprisonment for life- construction of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Under s.  428, Cr. P.C., an accused person sentenced to\nimprisonment for  a term  is entitled  to set off his under-\ntrial period  of detention against the sentence imposed upon\nhim.\n     The petitioners  were life-convicts undergoing sentence\nin different  Jails in\tHaryana. Under\tpara  516-B  of\t the\nPunjab\tHaryana\t  Jail\tManual\tthey  were  entitled  to  be\nconsidered for\tpremature release  on their completing 8-112\nyears  of   substantive\t imprisoment   and   14\t  years\t  of\nimprisonment  including\t  remissions.\tAccording   to\t the\npetitioners, if\t the period  of their  under-trial detention\nwas  added  f  -  to  their  total  period  of\timprisonment\nincluding remissions,  the total  detention would  exceed 14\nyears and  their continued  detention would  be illegal.  In\nMaru Ram v. Union of India and Anr<\/a>., [1981] 1 S.C.R. 1196 it\nhad been held that the mandatory minimum of 14 years' actual\nimprisonment specified\tin  s.\t433-A,\tCr.P.C<\/a>.,  would\t not\noperate against those 'lifers' whose conviction by the court\nof first  instance had\tbeen entered prior to 18th December,\n1978, and  that they  would not be entitled to consideration\nby Government  for premature  release on the strength of the\nremissions earned  under the  relevant rules. The Government\nof Haryana  had by  its\t order\tdated  2nd  February,  1981,\ndecided that  the  benefit  of\tthe  period  of\t under-trial\ndetention should  not be given to life-convicts who had been\nconvicted  before   18th  December,  1978.  The\t petitioners\nsubmitted that\tthe said  order was  invalid for  the reason\nthat it wrongfully denied to them the benefit of the set off\ncontemplated under s. 428<\/a>, Cr. P.C.\n     Counsel for  the petitioners  contended that  cases  of\nlife-convicts would fall within the terms of s. 428<\/a> as:\n     (i)  persons sentenced  to imprisonment  for life could\n\t  be said  to have been sentenced to their life-term\n\t  which under  the provisions  of the Penal Code<\/a> and\n\t  Jail Manual was regarded as equivalent to 20 years\n\t  or 14 year\n446\n     (ii) when remissions  are\tactually  granted  to  life-\n\t  convicts their  sentences become imprisonments for\n\t  a term:\n     (iii)when\tconvicts   other  than\tlife  convicts\twere\n\t  entitled  to\t the  benefit\tof   the   set\t off\n\t  contemplated under the section there was no reason\n\t  why life-convicts should be denied that advantage.\n\t  ..\n     Dismissing the petition,\n^\n     HELD: on  a plain\treading of  s. 428<\/a>,  Cr. P.C., it is\nclear that  the cases  of the  petitioners,  who  have\tbeen\nsentenced to  imprisonment for\tlife, would  not fall within\nthe section,  for, the\tsection applies to an accused person\nwho has\t on conviction\tbeen sentenced to imprisonment for a\nterm. [45O H; 451 A]\n     (b)  A perusal  of several sections of the Indian Penal\nCode<\/a> as well as Criminal Procedure Code<\/a> would show that both\nthe Code<\/a>s  make and  maintain a\t clear\tdistinction  between\n\"imprisonment for  life\" and  \"imprisonment for\t a term\"; in\nfact,  the  two\t expressions  \"imprisonment  for  life\"\t and\n\"imprisonment\tfor    a   term\"    have   been\t   used\t  in\ncontradistinction with\teach  other  in\t one  and  the\tsame\nsection, where\tthe former  must mean  imprisonment for\t the\nremainder of the natural life of the convict and latter must\nmean imprisonment  for a  definite or  fixed period.  Having\nregard to such distinction which is being maintained in both\nthe Code<\/a>s, it will be difficult to slur over the distinction\non the basis that life-convicts should be regarded as having\nbeen sentenced\tto a  life term or to say that the two could\nbe  understood\t as  interchangeable   expressions  because,\nbasically,  the\t life-term  of\tany  accused  is  uncertain.\nSection 57<\/a>,  I.P.C<\/a>. or the Remission Rules contained in Jail\nManuals are  irrelevant in  this context. It is well settled\nthat a sentence for imprisonment for life must be treated as\nimprisonment for  the whole  of the  remaining period of the\nconvicted person's  natural life.  [451 F-H; 452 D-E; 452 G;\n453 A]\n     Kishori Lal  v. Emperor,  A.l.R. [1945]  P.C. 64; Gopal\nVinayak Godse  v. The  State of\t Maharashtra<\/a> [1961] 3 S.C.R.\n440; Maru Ram v. The Union of India and Anr<\/a>. [1981] I S.C.R.\n1196; and  StatE of  Madhya Pradesh  v. Ratan  Singh & Ors<\/a>.,\n[1976] Supp. S.C.R. 552, referred to.\n     (c)  An  order   of  remission   passed  by  the  State\nGovernment or  by the  Jail Authorities\t does not  interfere\nwith either the conviction or sentence recorded by tho court\nwhich remains intact; it merely affects the execution of the\nsentence passed\t by the court and frees the convicted person\nfrom his  liability to undergo the full term of imprisonment\nand it is for this reason that an accused person has f every\nright  to  press  his  appeal  against\tthe  conviction\t and\nsentence imposed upon him, full remission - notwithstanding.\nMoreover, S.  428<\/a>, opens  with the  words \"where  an accused\nperson has,  on conviction,  been sentenced  to imprisonment\nfor a  term\" and  as such the section will come into play in\ncases  where   \"imprisonment  for  a  term\"  is\t awarded  on\nconviction by  a court\tand not where the convict's sentence\nbecomes a  sentence for a term on remission being granted by\nthe t Executive. [453 C-F]\n447\n     Puttawwa v.  The State  of Mysore,\t A.I.R. 1959  Mysore\n     116, approved. A\n     (d)  The  question\t  is  not   whether  the  beneficent\nprovision should  be extended  to life-convicts\t on a priori\nreasoning or  equitable consideration  but whether  on\ttrue\nconstruction the  section comprises life-convicts within its\npurview and  on construction it is not possible to hold that\nit does. The objects and reasons for introducing s. 428<\/a> anew\nin the\tCode<\/a>, as  set out  by the  Joint  Committee  in\t its\nReport, clearly\t show that cases of life-convicts were never\nintended to be covered by the provision. [453-G; 454-A-B]\n     Kalidas Vanmalibhai  v. State of Gujarat & Anr<\/a>., [1980]\n21 Guj. Law Reporter, 7, overruled.\n     Kanthalot Karunan\t& others v. State of Kerola,(1975) K\nL.T. 147:  Rajahusein Gulamhusein  Lakhani v.  The State  of\nMaharashtra<\/a> (1976)  Crl. L.J.  1294; Rafiq  Abdul Rehman  v.\n'The State  of Maharashtra<\/a>, (1978) Crl. L.J. 214 and Bhimsen\nv. The State of Rajasthan 1977 Crl. L.J. 696, approved.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     ORlGlNAL JURISDlCcTlON:  Writ Petition  (Crl.) No. 3226
\nof 1981. – D
\n\t  (Under Article 32<\/a> of the Constitution of India)
\n     R.C. Kohli for the Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
     K .G. Bhagat and R.N. Poddar for the Respondent.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     TULZAPURKAR, J.  This writ petition raises the question
\nwhether persons\t sentenced  to\timprisonment  for  life\t are
\nentitled to  set off  their under-trial\t period of detention
\nagainst their  sentence\t under\tsec.  428  of  the  Criminal
\nProcedure Code<\/a> ?\n<\/p>\n
     The facts\tgiving rise to the aforesaid question may be
\nstated.\n<\/p>\n
     The three petitioners (Kartar Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and
\nBaljit Singh)  on conviction  under sec.  30?, Indian  Penal
\nCode<\/a> were  sentenced to imprisonment for life, the first two
\non 20th\t February, 1973 and the last on 17th September, 1975
\nand each  one of then is at  present undergoing his sentence
\nin one or the other jails at Hissar in the State of Haryana.
\nThe petitioners\t have pointed  out that in Maru Ram v. Union
\nof  India   &  Anr<\/a>.(l)\t this  Court   while  upholding\t the
\nconstitutional validity\t of sec. 433-A of Criminal Procedure
\nCode<\/a>
\n448<\/span>
\nhas held the section to be prospective in effect, that is to
\nsay, the  mandatory minimum of 14 years’ actual imprisonment
\nspecified therein will not operate against those whose cases
\nwere decided  by the  trial court before 18th December, 1978
\nwhen the section came into force and that all ‘lifers’ whose
\nconviction by  the court  of the  first instance was entered
\nprior to  that date  would be  entitled to  consideration by
\nGovernment for\tpre-mature release  on the  strength of\t the
\nremissions earned  under the relevant rules and according to
\nthem under Para 516-B of the Punjab Haryana Jail Manual life
\nconvicts below the age of 20 at the date of their conviction
\nare entitled  to be  considered for  pre-mature\t release  on
\ntheir completing  6 years of substantive imprisonment and 10
\nyears  of   imprisonment  including  remissions\t while\tlife
\nconvicts  above\t  the  age  of\t20  at\tthe  date  of  their
\nconvictions are\t entitled to  be  considered  for  premature
\nrelease on  their completing  8\t 1\/2  years  of\t substantive
\nimprisonment  and   14\tyears\tof  imprisonment   including
\nremissions. The petitioners say that their case falls in the
\nsecond category\t and according\tto them they are entitled to
\nbe considered for premature release if to their total period
\nof imprisonment\t inclusive of remissions is added the period
\nof their  under-trial detention\t (which in  the case  of the
\nfirst two  petitioners is  612 days  and in  the case of the
\nthird petitioner  is 2 years I month and 14 days) as on such
\nreckoning the  total detention\texceeds 14  years and  their
\ncontinued detention is illegal; but the Respondent State has
\nissued an  order No.  1953\/591GI\/G  3\/r-19  (11)  dated\t 2nd
\nFebruary, 1981\tto all\tJail Superintendents  in  the  State
\nwhereunder instructions\t have  been  issued-  that  for\t the
\npurpose of  considering cases  of pre-mature  release  while
\ncalculating 8-1\/2  years substantive  sentence and  14 years
\nimprisonment including remissions the benefit of under-trial
\nperiod is  not to  be given  to life  convicts who have been
\nconvicted before  18th December,  1978. The petitioners have
\nchallenged the legality and\/or validity of the said order as
\nbeing contrary\tto law\tand violative  of Arts. 14 and 21 of
\nthe  Constitution.   In\t substance   the  petitioners\thave
\ncontended that\tthe  said  order  illegally  and  wrongfully
\ndenies\tto   life  convicts   the  benefit   of\t a   set-off
\ncontemplated under  sec. 421  Cr.  P.C.\t and  therefore\t the
\npetitioners have  sought a mandamus directing the Respondent
\nState to  consider their  cases for release under Para 516-B
\nof the\tPunjab\/Haryana Jail  Manual after  giving  them\t the
\nbenefit of said set-off against their sentences.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t the   counter-affidavit  filed\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nRespondent State  the legal position obtaining as . a result
\nof this Court’s decision
\n449<\/span>
\nin Maru\t Ram’s case (supra) has been accepted; similarly the
\neffect of  Para 516-B  of the  Punjab\/Haryana Jail Manual as
\nset out\t by the petitioners is also accepted. It is however,
\ndenied that  the order No. 1953\/59\/G1\/G.3\/T-19(11) dated 2nd
\nFebruary, 1981\tis illegal  or invalid\tfor any reason or is
\ncontrary to  sec. 428,\tCr. P.C.  It has been contended that
\nthe benefit  of a  set-off contemplated by sec. 428 Cr. P.C.
\nis not\tavailable to life convicts but is available to those
\nconvicts who  have been sentenced to imprisonment for a term
\nand therefore  far  from  being\t contrary  to  any  law\t the
\nimpugned order\tis in accord with the provisions of sec. 428
\nCr.  P.C.   and\t since\tthe  periods  of  their\t under-trial
\ndetention are  not to  be reckoned  or set off against their
\nsentences the  petitioners’ cases  could not be said to have
\nbecome ripe  for consideration\tfor pre-mature release. Even
\notherwise,   according\t  to   the    Respondent-State\t the
\npetitioners’  cases,   have  not   become  ripe\t  for\tsuch
\nconsideration because  the periods  of substantive or actual
\nimprisoment, the remissions earned and the periods of under-
\ntrial detention\t as set\t out  by  the  petitioners  are\t not
\ncorrect. According  to the  Respondent-State in\t the case of
\nKartar\tSingh  the  net\t period\t of  substantive  or  actual
\nimprisonment is 6 years 9 months and 11 days, the remissions
\nearned by  him amount  to 4  years S  months and 24 days, to
\nwhich even if the period of undertrial detention, which is 1
\nyear 8\tmonths and  4 days,  is added  the total comes to 12
\nyears, 11  months and 9 days and not 14 years as required by
\nPara 516-B of the Punjab\/Haryana Jail Manual; in the case of
\nMukhtiar Singh\tthe net\t period\t of  substantive  or  actual
\nimprisoment is\t7  years,  zero\t month\tand  six  days,\t the
\nremissions earned  by him amount to 4 years, 7 months and 10
\ndays, to  which even  if the period of under-trial detention
\nwhich is  1 year,  8 months  and 4  days is  added the total
\ncomes to  13 years, 3 months and 20 days and not 14 years as
\nrequired by the said Para 516-B; in the case of Baljit Singh
\nthe net substantive or actual imprisonment under gone by him
\nis 4  years, 9\tmonths and 10 days, the remissions earned by
\nhim amount  to 3  years, 8 months, 11 days, to which even if
\nthe period of uodertrial detention which is 2 years, I month
\nand 13\tdays is\t added the total comes to 10 years, 7 months
\nand 4  days and\t not 14\t years as  required by the said Para
\n516-B. In  any event,  therefore, none of the petitioners is
\nentitled to  have his case considered for pre-mature release
\nand therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     Since  the\t  legal\t  question   touching\tthe   proper
\nconstruction of
\n450<\/span>
\nsec. 428  Cr. PC.  was argued at length by counsel on either
\nside at the Bar we have decided to address ourselves to that
\nquestion without  getting lost\tin the factual dispute as to
\nwhether even  after reckoning  the periods  of their  under-
\ntrial detention\t the petitioners are or are . P not entitled
\nto have\t their cases  considered by the State Government for
\npre-mature release  under Para\t516-B of  the Punjab\/Haryana
\nJail Manual.  In other words for the purpose of deciding the
\nquestion we  shall proceed  on the assumption that factually
\nif the periods of their under-trial detention are taken into
\naccount the  petitioners would\tbe entitled  to\t have  their
\ncases considered  for premature\t release.  the\tquestion  is
\nwhether even  on such  assumed factual basis the petitioners
\nare in\tlaw entitled  to get  a set  off of the said periods
\nagainst their  sentences under\tsec. 428 of the Cr. P.C. and
\nif so,\twhether the  impugned order dated 2nd February, 1981
\nissued by the Respondent-State is illegal or invalid.\n<\/p>\n
     At the  outset it may be stated that the impugned order
\ndated 2nd  February, 1981 is challenged as contravening sec.
\n428 but\t the constitutional  validity of sec. 428 itself has
\nnot been  challenged. Admittedly  all the  three petitioners
\nhave  been  convicted  under  sec.302,\tIPC<\/a>  and  have\tbeen
\nsentenced to  imprisonment for\tlife  and  the\tquestion  is
\nwhether sec.  428 Cr.  P.C. is\tapplicable to them. Sec. 428
\nruns thus\n<\/p>\n
\t  428. Period  of detention undergone by the accused
\n\t  to  be   set\t off   against\t the   sentence\t  of
\n\t  imprisonment:\n<\/p>\n
\t       Where an\t accused person\t has, on conviction,
\n\t  been sentenced  to imprisonment  for a  term,\t the
\n\t  period of  detention, if  any,  undergone  by\t him
\n\t  during the  investigation, inquiry or trial of the
\n\t  same case  and before the date of such conviction,
\n\t  shall be  set of  against the term of imprisonment
\n\t  imposed  on\thim  on\t such  conviction,  and\t the
\n\t  liability of\tsuch person  to undergo\t imprison  –
\n\t  ment on such conviction shall be restricted to the
\n\t  remainder, if\t any of\t the  term  of\timprisonment
\n\t  imposed on him.\n<\/p>\n
on a  plain reading  of the  aforesaid provision  it will be
\nclear that  the cases  of the  petitioners,  who  have\tbeen
\nsentenced to  imprisonment for\tlife, would  not fall within
\nthe section,  for, the\tsection applies to an accused person
\nwho has on conviction, been sentenced to imprison.\n<\/p>\n
     citizens of  this ancient\tland  having  a\t feeling  of
\nbelonging to the civilised community governed by the liberty
\noriented consitution.  Personal liberty\t makes for the worth
\nof  human  being  and  is  a  cherished\t and  prized  right.
\nDeprivation thereof  must be preceded by an inquiry ensuring
\nfair, just  and reasonable procedure and trial by a judge of
\nunquestioned inte-\n<\/p>\n
451<\/span><\/p>\n
ment for  a Term and it is only in cases of such persons who
\nhave been  sentenced to\t imprisonment for  a term  that\t the
\nperiod of  their under\ttrial detention\t has to\t be set\t off
\nagainst the  term of  the imprisonment imposed upon them and
\nthe liability of such persons to undergo imprisonment has to
\nbe restricted  to the  remainder, if any, imposed upon them.
\nCounsel for  the petitioners,  however, raised\ta  two\tfold
\ncontention. In\tthe first  place, he  contended that persons
\nsentenced to  imprisonment for\tlife could  be said  to have
\nbeen sentenced to their life term which under the provisions
\nof the Penal Code<\/a> (section 57<\/a>) and Jail Manuals (Para 716-B)
\nare regarded  as equivalent  to 20  years or 14 years and as
\nsuch cases  of life  convicts would fall within the terms of
\nsec.  428.  Secondly,  in  any\tevent  when  remissions\t are
\nactually granted  by the State Government under sec. 432 Cr.
\nP.C. Or by the Jail Authorities under the relevant remission
\nrules contained in Jail Manuals to life convicts their cases
\nshould be treated as falling within the purview of sec. 428,
\ninasmuch as  on the  grant  of\tremissions  their  sentences
\nbecome imprisonments  for a  term and  since in\t the instant
\ncase each one of the petitioners has been granted remissions
\neach is\t entitled  to  have  the  benefit  of  the  set\t off
\nmentioned in  sec. 428\tof the Cr. P.C; and consequently the
\nimpugned  order\t  of  2nd  February,.  1981  issued  by\t the
\nRespondent State would be illegal or invalid as contravening
\nthe section. To support his contention Counsel relied upon a
\ndecision of  the Gujarat  High Court  in the case of Kalidas
\nVanmalibhai v. State of Gujarat and Anr<\/a>.(l) where that Court
\nhas taken  the view that a beneficent provision like the one
\ncontained in  sec. 428\tCr. P.C. should be made available to
\nconvicts sentenced  to life imprisonment. It is not possible
\nto accept  the submissions  of Counsel for the reasons which
\nwe shall presently indicate.\n<\/p>\n
     In the first place a perusal of several sections of the
\nIndian Penal  Code<\/a> as  well as\tCriminal Procedure Code<\/a> will
\nshow  that   both  the\tCode<\/a>s  make  and  maintain  a  clear
\ndistinction between  imprisonment for  life and imprisonment
\nfor a  term; in\t fact, the two expressions ‘imprisonment for
\nlife’ and  ‘imprisonment for  a\t term’\thave  been  used  in
\ncontra-distinction with\t each other  in\t one  and  the\tsame
\nsection, where\tthe former  must mean  imprisonment for\t the
\nremainder  of\tthe  natural  life  of\tthe  convict  (vide:
\ndefinition of  ‘life’ in  s. 45<\/a>\t I.P.C.) and the latter must
\nmean imprisonment for a definite or fixed
\n452<\/span>
\nperiod.\t For   instance\t sec.\t304  I.P.C<\/a>.   provides\tthat
\npunishment for\tculpable homicide  not amounting  to  murder
\nshall be  imprisonment for  life or  imprisonment of  either
\ndescription for\t a term\t which may  extend  to\tten  years’;
\nsection 305<\/a>  provides that  punishment\tfor  abetment  of  a
\nsuicide of  a child  or insane\tperson shall  be  ‘death  or
\nimprisonment  for  life\t or  imprisonment  for\ta  term\t not
\nexceeding ten  years’; section\t307<\/a> provides that punishment
\nfor an\tattempt to  commit murder accompanied by actual hurt
\nshall be  imprisonment for  life or  imprisonment of  either
\ndescription  which   may  extend  to  ten  years;  so  also,
\nvoluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery is punishable
\nunder sec.  394 with  imprisonment for life or with rigorous
\nimprisonment for  a term which may extend to ten years. Sec.
\nSS I.P.C<\/a>.  uses the  two expressions  in  contra-distinction
\nwith each  other and says that an appropriate Government may
\nin every  case in  which sentence  of imprisonment  for life
\nshall  have   been  passed   commute  the   punishment\t for
\nimprisonment of\t either description for a term not exceeding
\nfourteen years;\t similarly, section 433(b)<\/a> Cr. P.C. uses the
\ntwo expressions\t in  contra-distinction\t with  one  another.
\nHaving regard  to such distinction which is being maintained
\nin both\t the Code<\/a>s  it will  be difficult  to slur  over the
\ndistinction on\tthe  basis  that  life\tconvicts  should  be
\nregarded as  having been  sentenced to\tlife-term or  to say
\nthat  the   two\t could\t be  understood\t as  interchangeable
\nexpressions because  basically the  life term of any accused
\nis uncertain. Further, sec. 57 I.P.C<\/a>. Or the Remission Rules
\ncontained in Jail Manuals (e.g. Para 516-B of Punjab\/Haryana
\nJail Manual)  are irrelevant  in this  context.\t section  57<\/a>
\nI.P.C. provides that imprisonment for life shall be reckoned
\nas equivalent  to imprisonment\tfor  twenty  years  for\t the
\nspecific purpose  mentioned therein, namely, for the purpose
\nof calculating\tfractions of terms of punishment and not for
\nall purposes;  similarly Remissions  Rules contained in Jail
\nManuals cannot\toverride statutory  provisions contained  in
\nthe Penal  Code<\/a> and  the sentence  of imprisonment  for life
\nwill have  to be regarded as a sentence for the remainder of
\nthe natural life of the convict. The Privy Council in Pandit
\nKishori Lal’s(1)  case and  this Court\tin Gopal  Godse’s(2)
\ncase have  settled this\t position once and for all by taking
\nthe view  that a  sentence for\ttransportation for  life  or
\nimprisonment for  life must  be treated as transportation or
\nimprisonment for the whole of the
\n453<\/span>
\nremaining period  of the  convicted person’s  natural  life.
\nThis view A has been confirmed and followed by this Court in
\ntwo subsequent\tdecisions-in Ratan  Singh’s(l) case and Maru
\nRam’s case (supra). In this view of the matter life convicts
\nwould not fall within the purview of sec. 428, Cr. P.C.\n<\/p>\n
     The  next\tsubmission  that  at  least  cases  of\tlife
\nconvicts who  n have been actually granted remissions either
\nby the\tState Government  under sec. 432 Cr. P.C. Or by Jail
\nAuthorities under  the relevant\t Remission Rules  should  be
\ntreated as falling within the purview of sec. 428 because on
\nthe grant of remissions, their sentences become sentences of
\nimprisonment for  a term  is also without any substance. The
\nargument is  fallacious for two reasons. In the first place,
\nan  order of remission passed by the State Government or by
\nthe Jail  Authorities does  not interfere  with\t either\t the
\nconviction or  sentence recorded  by the Court which remains
\nintact; it  merely affects  the execution  of  the  sentence
\npassed by  the Court and frees the convicted person from his
\nliability to undergo the full term of imprisonment and it is
\nfor this  reason that  an accused  person has every right to
\npress his appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed
\nupon him, full remission notwithstanding. (Vide: Puttawwa v.
\nThe State  of Mysore(2)\t secondly, sec.\t 428 opens  with the
\nwords: “Where  an accused  person has,\ton conviction,\tbeen
\nsentenced to  imprisonment for\ta  term”  and  as  such\t the
\nsection will come into play in cases where ‘imprisonment for
\na term’\t is awarded  on conviction  by a court and not where
\nthe convict’s  sentence becomes\t a sentence  for a  term  on
\nremission being granted by the Executive. In the latter case
\nthe section on its own terms would be inapplicable.\n<\/p>\n
     The last  submission has  been that  if convicts  other
\nthan life-  convicts are  entitled to the benefit of the set
\noff under  sec. 428,  there is\tno reason  why life convicts
\nshould be  denied the advantage of this beneficial provision
\nand in\tthis behalf it was pointed out that such an argument
\nhas found  favour with\tthe Gujarat  High Court\t in  Kalidas
\nVanmalibhai’s case  (supra). In our view the question is not
\nwhether the  beneficient provision  should  be\textended  to
\nlife-  convicts\t  on  a\t  priori  reasoning   or   equitable
\nconsideration but whether
\n454<\/span>
\non true\t construction the  section comprises  life  convicts
\nwithin its purview and on construction it is not possible to
\nhold that  they do. Moreover, if the objects and reasons for
\nintroducing sec.  428 anew  in the  Code<\/a>, as  set out by the
\nJoint Committee\t in its\t Report are  taken into\t account, it
\nwill appear  clear that\t cases of  life convicts  were never
\nintended to be covered by the provision. The Joint Committee
\nhas stated  the objects\t and reasons  for  introducing\tthis
\nprovision in the Code<\/a> thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The Committee has noted the distressing fact that
\n     in many  cases accused persons are kept in prison for a
\n     very long\tperiod as  under-trial prisoners and in some
\n     cases the\tsentence of  imprisonment ultimately awarded
\n     is a  fraction of\tthe period  spent in  Jail as under-
\n     trial prisoner.  Indeed, there  may even be cases where
\n     such a  person is acquitted. No doubt, sometimes courts
\n     do take  into account the period of detention undergone
\n     as\t under-trial  prisoner\twhen  passing  sentence\t and
\n     occasionally the sentence of imprisonment is restricted
\n     to the period already undergone. But this is not always
\n     the case  so that\tin many cases, the accused person is
\n     made to  suffer jail  life for  a\tperiod\tout  of\t all
\n     proportion to the gravity of the offence or even to the
\n     punishment provided  in the  statute. The Committee has
\n     also noted\t that a\t large\tnumber\tof  persons  in\t the
\n     overcrowded jails\tof today  are under-trial prisoners.
\n     The new  clause seeks  to\tremedy\tthis  unsatisfactory
\n     state of affairs.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is obvious that the mischief sought to be remedied has no
\nrelevance where\t gravity of  offence requires the imposition
\nof imprisonment for life
\n     Having regard to the above discussion, it is clear that
\nthe benefit of the set off contemplated by sec. 428 Cr. P.C.
\nwould not  be available\t to life  convicts. In our view, the
\ndecision of  the Gujarat  High Court  in the case of Kalidas
\nVanmalibhai is\terroneous and  the contrary  view  taken  by
\nKerala High  Court in Kanthalot Karunan & others v. State of
\nKerala(1) by  Bombay High  Court in  Rajahusein\t Gulamhusein
\nLakhani v. The State of Maharashtra,(Z) Rafiq Abdul
\n455<\/span>
\nRehman v. The State of Maharashtra(l) and by Rajasthan- High
\nCourt in Bhimsen v. The State of Rajasthan(2) is correct. In
\nthis view  of the  matter,  the\t impugned  order  dated\t 2nd
\nFebruary, 1982\tpassed by  the\tRespondent-State,  being  in
\nconformity with\t sec. 428  Cr. P.C.,  is perfectly legal and
\nvalid.\n<\/p>\n
     In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
H.L.C.\t\t\t\t\tPetitions dismissed.\n456<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kartar Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana Through … on 26 August, 1982 Equivalent citations: 1982 AIR 1439, 1983 SCR (1) 445 Author: V Tulzapurkar Bench: Tulzapurkar, V.D. PETITIONER: KARTAR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH INSPECTOR .GENERAL OF PRISON, CHAND DATE OF JUDGMENT26\/08\/1982 BENCH: TULZAPURKAR, V.D. […]<\/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-249146","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKartar Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana Through ... on 26 August, 1982 - 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\/kartar-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-through-on-26-august-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kartar Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana Through ... on 26 August, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kartar-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-through-on-26-august-1982\" \/>\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=\"1982-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-26T17:48:11+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kartar-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-through-on-26-august-1982#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kartar-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-through-on-26-august-1982\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kartar Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana Through … on 26 August, 1982\",\"datePublished\":\"1982-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-26T17:48:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kartar-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-through-on-26-august-1982\"},\"wordCount\":3167,\"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\\\/kartar-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-through-on-26-august-1982#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kartar-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-through-on-26-august-1982\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kartar-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-through-on-26-august-1982\",\"name\":\"Kartar Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana Through ... on 26 August, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1982-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-26T17:48:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kartar-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-through-on-26-august-1982#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kartar-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-through-on-26-august-1982\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kartar-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-through-on-26-august-1982#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kartar Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana Through … on 26 August, 1982\"}]},{\"@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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"Kartar Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana Through ... on 26 August, 1982 - 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\/kartar-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-through-on-26-august-1982","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kartar Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana Through ... on 26 August, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kartar-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-through-on-26-august-1982","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1982-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-26T17:48:11+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kartar-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-through-on-26-august-1982#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kartar-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-through-on-26-august-1982"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kartar Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana Through … on 26 August, 1982","datePublished":"1982-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-26T17:48:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kartar-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-through-on-26-august-1982"},"wordCount":3167,"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\/kartar-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-through-on-26-august-1982#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kartar-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-through-on-26-august-1982","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kartar-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-through-on-26-august-1982","name":"Kartar Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana Through ... on 26 August, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1982-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-26T17:48:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kartar-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-through-on-26-august-1982#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kartar-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-through-on-26-august-1982"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kartar-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-through-on-26-august-1982#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kartar Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana Through … on 26 August, 1982"}]},{"@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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/249146","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=249146"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/249146\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=249146"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=249146"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=249146"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}