RANJIT SINGH versus UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH & ANR.

RANJIT SINGH versus UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH & ANR.

Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. operates such that when a person already undergoing a life sentence is subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment for another offence, the latter sentence is superimposed to the former and must run concurrently; remission or commutation of the earlier sentence does not ipso facto affect the subsequent sentence unless similar benefit is granted; mandatory minimum imprisonment applies as per s. 433A Cr.P.C, so petitioner cannot claim writ relief without actual serving or remission by government.

Parties
Petitioner: Ranjit Singh; Respondents: Union Territory of Chandigarh & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 August 1991
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (crl.) No. 116 of 1990 (under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) / Final Disposition; Treated as Petition for Clarification of Earlier Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Petition for writ under Article 32 dismissed; treated as petition for clarification; clarification of earlier judgment granted.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences, Remission and Commutation, Interpretation of Sentencing Provisions
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Sentencing Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences Remission and Commutation Interpretation of Sentencing Provisions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ranjit Singh

Petitioner

Union Territory of Chandigarh & Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (crl.) No. 116 of 1990 (under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) / Final Disposition; Treated as Petition for Clarification of Earlier Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sentences of life imprisonment imposed for two separate murders should run concurrently as per s. 427(2) Cr.P.C.
  2. 2 Whether remission or commutation of the earlier sentence of life imprisonment automatically applies to the subsequent life sentence
  3. 3 Maintainability of writ petition under Article 32 for release based on remission/remission rules

Ratio Decidendi

Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. operates such that when a person already undergoing a life sentence is subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment for another offence, the latter sentence is superimposed to the former and must run concurrently; remission or commutation of the earlier sentence does not ipso facto affect the subsequent sentence unless similar benefit is granted; mandatory minimum imprisonment applies as per s. 433A Cr.P.C, so petitioner cannot claim writ relief without actual serving or remission by government.

Court Disposition

Petition for writ under Article 32 dismissed; treated as petition for clarification; clarification of earlier judgment granted.

Orders

  • Clarified that subsequent life sentence shall be superimposed and not run consecutively, in accordance with s. 427(2) Cr.P.C.
  • Remission or commutation in respect of earlier sentence does not automatically grant benefit in subsequent sentence; successive life sentences shall not run concurrently unless corresponding benefit is granted for both sentences.