SAMRENDRA BEURAversusU.O.I. & OTHERS

                    [2013] 3 S.C.R. 781


                   SAMRENDRA BEURA                               A
                             v.
                     U.0.1. & OTHERS
            (Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 78 of 2013)

                       MAY 20, 2013
                                                                 B
     [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]

    Air Force Act, 1950:

     s. 164 - Sentence of imprisonment - Commencement of         c
- Pre-trial detention - Claim for setting if off against
imprisonment - Held: s. 164 makes it clear that period of
commencement of imprisonment is to be reckoned to
commence on the day on which original proceedings were
signed by Presiding Officer- Pre-trial detention cannot be set   0
off against sentence of imprisonment passed by court martial
- Therefore, there is no illegal detention warranting issue of
writ of habeas corpus - Keeping in view the amendments
made in this regard in Army Act and Navy Act, Union of India
may seriously consider to bring a similar amendment in Air       E
Force Act also - Legislation - Need for- Army Act, 1950 -
s.169-A - Navy Act, 1957 - s.151- Constitution of India, 1950
- Art. 32 - Writ of habeas corpus.

     The petitioner, as a Mechanical Transport Driver in the
Indian Air Force, was found guilty of unauthorized               F
absence and was imposed the sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for three months uls 39(a) of the Air Force
Act, 1950, apart from dismissal from service and reduction
in rank. The order was affirmed by competent authority.
In the instant writ petition, the petitioner prayed for issue    G
of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to
release him as he continued in illegal detention because
he had already spent one and half months in custody
before the conviction was recorded by the court-martial.
                             781                                 H
    782      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013) 3 S.C.R.


A       The question for consideration before the Court
    was: "whether the period of custody prior to the date of
    passing and signing of the order by the district court-
    martial is to be set off in respect of the sentence
    imposed."
B
          Disposing of the writ petition, the Court

       HELD: 1. On a plain reading of s.164 of the Air Force
  Act, 1950, it is clear that the period of imprisonment is to
  be reckoned to commence on the day on which the
C original proceedings were signed by the Presiding
  Officer. In view of the enunciation of law by this Court,
  there can be no scintilla of doubt that the pre-trial
  detention cannot be set off against the sentence of
  imprisonment passed by the court-martial for the offence
D u/s 39(a) which has been affirmed u/s 161(1) of the Act
  and the period of sentence shall commence from the date
  when the original proceeding was signed by the
  Presiding Officer. Thus, there is no illegal detention
  warranting issue of writ of habeas corpus. However, the
E Competent Authority is directed to decide expeditiously
  the representation of the petitioner u/s 180(1) read with
  s.184 of the Act. [para 10, 12 and 13) [786-F; 788-D-F]

          Ajmer Singh and Others v. Union of India and Others
  1987 (3) SCR 84 = 1987 (3) SCC 340; Bhuwaneshwar Singh
                                                        =
F v. Union of India and Others 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 56 1993
  (4) sec 327 - relied on.
       2. Keeping in view the amendments in the Army Act
  and the Navy Act wherein provisions have been inserted
G to set off the period of custody against imprisonment,
  regard being had to the purpose of the amendment and
  the totality of the circumstances, it is apt to recommend
  that Union of India seriously considers to bring an
  amendment in the Act so that the hardships faced by the
H
             SAMRENDRA BEURA v. U.0.1.                         783

persons convicted by the court-martial are avoided. [para             A
14-16] [788-G-H; 790-B]
                       Case Law Reference:
     1987 (3) SCR 84                  relied on         para 10
                                                                      B
     1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 56           relied on         para 11
     CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Under Article 32
of the Constitution of India.

     Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 78 of 2013.                         c
     Merusagar Samantaray for the petitioner.

    Rakesh K. Khanna, ASG, Chandan Kumar, B.V. Bairam
Das, R. Balasubramanian for the Respondents.
                                                                      D
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. In this writ petition, preferred under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an
employee of Indian Air Force, who has been found guilty of the        E
offence under Section 39(a) of The Air Force Act, 1950 (for
brevity "the Act") and has been awarded sentence to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for· three months along with other
punishments by order dated 15.3.2013 which has been
affirmed by the Competent Authority under Section 161(1) of
the said enactment, has prayed for issue of a writ of habeas          F
corpus directing the respondents to release him as he is in
illegal detention because he had already spent one and half
months in custody before the conviction was recorded by the
court-martial.
                                                                      G
      2. The factual score, as depicted, is that the petitioner was
appointed as a Mechanical Transport Driver in the Indian Air
Force on 16.12.2002. As he absenied himself without leave
from 9.10.2012 to 1.2.2013, a court-martial proceeding was
initiated against him and, eventually, by order dated 15.3.2013,      H
    784     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013) 3 S.C.R.

A he was found guilty and was imposed the sentence of rigorous
  imprisonment for three months apart from dismissal from
  service and reduction of rank. It is put forth in the petition that
  the petitioner had surrendered before the Competent Authority
  whereafter he was charged for the offence under Section 39(a)
B of the Act. It is contended that the sentence imposed under
  Section 39(a) should take into consideration the period
  commencing 1.2.2003 as he had surrendered to custody
  before the Competent Authority.

        3. As the respondents have been represented and the
C issue involved exclusively relates to pure realm of law, we have
  heard Mr. Merusagar Samantary, learned counsel for the
  petitioner, and Mr. Rakesh Khanna, learned Additional Solicitor
  General, and Mr. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the
  respondents.
D
        4. It is the admitted fact that the petitioner surrendered to
  custody on 1.2.2013. There is a dispute with regard to the date
  of the order passed by the Competent Authority, namely,
  district court-martial. The learned counsel for the petitioner
E would contend that it was passed on 15.3.2013 whereas Mr.
  Khanna would submit that it was passed on 18.3.2013. The
  said disputed fact is neither material one nor would it have any
  impact on the adjudication of the writ petition inasmuch as the
  fulcrum of the matter is whether the period of custody prior to
F the date of passing and signing of the order by the district court-
  martial is to be set off in respect of the sentence imposed.
        5. Section 39 which provides for absence without leave
  stipulates that any one who commits any offence falling under
  clauses 39(a) to (g) shall, on conviction by court-martial, be
G liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to
  three years or such less punishment as the Act mentions.
  Chapter IX deals with arrest and proceedings before trial.
  Section 102, which occurs in this Chapter, deals with custody
  of offenders and reads as follows: -
H
  SAMRENDRA BEURA v. U.0.1. [DIPAK MISRA, J.]                785

    "102. Custody of offenders. - (1) Any person subject to         A
    th is Act who is charged with an offence may be. taken into
    air force custody.

    (2) Any such person may be ordered into air force custody
    by any superior officer.
                                                                    B
    (3) Any officer may order into air force custody any officer,
    though he may be of a higher rank, engaged in a quarrel,
    affray or disorder."

    6. Section 103 deals with duty of commanding officer in         c
regard to detention and Section 104 provides for interval
between committal and court-martial. It reads as follows: -

    "104. Interval between committal and court-martial. -
    In every case where any such person as is mentioned in
    section 102 and as is not on active service remains in such     D
    custody for a longer period than eight days, without a court-
    martial for his trial being ordered to assemble, a special
    report giving reasons for the delay shall be made by his
    commanding officer in the manner prescribed; and a
    similar report shall be forwarded every eight days until a      E
    court-martial assembled or such person is released from
    custody."

    7. Section 107 deals with inquiry into absence without
leave. Sub-section (1) of the said Section provides that when       F
any person has been absent from duty without due authority for
a period of 30 days, a court of inquiry shall, as soon as
practicable, be assembled and such court shall, on oath or
affirmation administered in the prescribed manner, inquire
regarding the absence of the person. The rest of the provision      G
need not be adverted to.
    8. Section 109 deals with different kinds of court-martial
and clause (b) of the said Section relates to district court-
martial. Section 119 deals with the powers of district court-
                                                                    H
    786       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 3 S.C.R.


A martial. Chapter XI commencing from Sections 127 to 151
  deals with the procedure of court-martial. Section 152, which
  occurs in Chapter XII, deals with confirmation and revision and
  provides that no finding or sentence of a general, district or
  summary general court-martial shall be valid except so far as
B it may be confirmed as provided by the Act. Section 154 deals
  with the power to confirm finding and sentence of district-court
  martial.

       9. In the case at hand, after the sentence was imposed,
  the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief confirmed the order on
C 20.4.2013. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
  propone that the sentence of imprisonment of three months
  should commence from 1.2.2013, the date on which he
  surrendered and was taken into custody. In this context, Mr.
  Khanna has drawn our attention to Section 164 of the Act. It
D reads as follows: -

          "164. Commencement of sentence of transportation
          or imprisonment. - Whenever any person is sentenced
          by a court-martial under this Act to transportation,
E         imprisonment or detention the term of his sentence shall,
          whether it has been revised or not, be reckoned to
          commence on the day on which the original proceedings
          were signed by the presiding officer."

       10. On a plain reading of the said provision, it 1s clear as
F day that the period of imprisonment is to be reckoned to
  commence on the day on which the original proceedings were
  signed by the Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer has
  signed, as submitted by Mr. Khanna, on 18.3.2013 and,
  therefore, the petitioner has to suffer three months
G imprisonment from that date. In this context, we may usefully
  refer to a two-Judge Bench decision in Ajmer Singh and Others
  v. Union of India and Others1 • The issue before this Court was
  regarding the applicability of Section 428 of the Code of

H 1.   (1987) 3 sec 340.
  SAMRENDRA BEURA v. U.0.1. [DIPAK MISRA, J.]                787


Criminal Procedure to a person sentenced to undergo                  A
imprisonment by general court-martial under the Army Act,
1950 (for short "the 1950 Act"). The two learned Judges
observed that the position in the Army Act would equally govern
the person sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment by the
court-martial under the Navy Act, 1957 (for short "the 1957 Act")    B
and the Air Force Act. The two-Judge Bench referred to the
divergence of views between different High Courts pertaining
to the applicability of Section 428 of the Code and, thereafter,
the interpreted Section 167 of the 1950 Act and came :o hold
as follows:-                                                         c
     "9. Section 167 of the Act specifically lays down that
    whenever a person is sentenced by a court martial under
    the Act to imprisonment, the term of his sentence shall,
    whether it has been revised or not, be reckoned to
    commence on the day on which the original proceedings            D
    were signed by the Presiding Officer or, in the case of a
    summary court martial, by the Court. In the face of this
    categorical provision laying down that the sentence of
    imprisonment shall be deemed to have commenced only
    on the day when the court martial proceeding was signed          E
    by the Presiding Officer or by the Court as the case may
    be, it is in our opinion futile to contend that the Army Act
    is silent with respect to the topic as to the date with effect
    from which the period of imprisonment covered by the
    sentence is to be reckoned. We state this only for the           F
    reason that an ingenious argument was advanced before
    us by counsel for the appellants that Section 5 of the Code
    of Criminal Procedure only lays down that nothing in the
    Code shall affect any special or local law and hence in the
    absence of any specific provision in the special or local        G
    law covering the particular subject-matter, the provisions
    of the Code would get attracted. Even if this argument is
    to be assumed to be correct (which assumption we shall
    presently show is wholly unwarranted), inasmuch as
    Section 167 of the Act specifically deals with the topic of      H
    788       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 3 S.C.R.


A         the date of commencement of the sentence of
          imprisonment, there is absolutely no scope for invoking the
          aid of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in
          respect of prisoners convicted by court martial under the
          Act."
B
       11. In Bhuwaneshwar Singh v. Union of India and Others2,
  the Court referred to the pronouncement in Ajmer Singh (supra)
  and opined that as far as set off of the period of pre-trial
  detention against the period of sentence is concerned, Section
  428 of the Code is not attracted to the cases of persons
C convicted by the court-martial to undergo imprisonments.

       12. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, there can
  be no scintilla of doubt that the pre-trial detention cannot be sett
  off against the sentence of imprisonment passed by the court-
D martial for the offence under Section 39(a) which has been
  affirmed under Section 161(1) of the Act and the perior: of
  sentence shall commence from the date when the original
  proceeding was signed by the Presiding Officer. Thus, there
  is no illegal detention warranting issue of writ of habeas corpus.
E
       13. We have been apprised that the petitioner has
  submitted a representation under Section 180(1) read with
  Section 184 of the Act. Without expressing any opinion on the
  merits of the said representation, we direct the Competent
F Authority to decide the same within a period of seven days from
  today.

        14. Before parting with this case, it is necessary to note
  that in the 1950 Act, the Parliament has incorporated Section
  169-A to avoid hardship to the persons convicted by the court-
G martial. The said provision is as follows: -

          "169-A. Period of custody undergone by the officer or
          person to be set off against the imprisonment.- When
          a person or officer subject to this Act is sentenced by a
H   2.   (1993) 4 sec 327.
  SAMRENDRA BEURA v. U.0.1. [DIPAK MISRA, J.]                 789


    court-martial to a term of imprisonment, not being an             A
    imprisonment in default of payment of fine, the period
    spent by him in civil or military custody during investigation,
    inquiry or trial of the same case and before the date of
    order of such sentence, shall be set off against the term
    of imprisonment imposed upon him, and the liability of such       8
    person or officer to undergo imprisonment on such order
    of sentence shall be restricted to the remainder, if any, of
    the term of imprisonment imposed upon him."

    15. Similarly, Section 151 of the 1957 Act which deals with
commencement of sentence has been amended by Act 23 of                C
2005 with effect from 23.6.2005. For the present purpose, it is
requisite to reproduce Section 151 (1) and (3): -

    "151. Commencement of sentence. - (1) Subject to the
    provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) every term of              o
    imprisonment or detention awarded in pursuance of this
    Act shall be reckoned as commencing on the day on which
  · the sentence was awarded.

     (4) ................. .
                                                                      E
    (5) Whenever any offender is sentenced by a court-martial
    to a term of imprisonment, in pursuance of this Act, not
    being imprisonment in default of payment of fine, the period
    spent by him in civil or naval custody during investigation,
    inquiry or trial of the same case, and before the date of         F
    order of such sentence, shall be set off against the terms
    of imprisonment imposed upon him, and the liability of such
    offender to undergo imprisonment on such order of
    sentence shall be restricted to the remainder, if any, of the
    term of imprisonment imposed upon him."                           G

     16. Though such amendments have been made by the
Parliament under the 1950 Act and the 1957 Act, yet no" such
amendment has been incorporated in the Air Force Act, 1950.
The aforesaid provisions, as we perceive, have been                   H
    790        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2013] 3 S.C.R.


A   incorporated in both the statutes to avoid hardship to persons
    convicted by the court-martial. Similar hardship is suffered by
    the persons who are sentenced to imprisonment under various
    provisions of the Act. Keeping in view the aforesaid
    amendment in the other two enactments and regard being had
8   to the purpose of the amendment and the totality of the
    circumstances, we think it apt to recommend the Union of India
    to seriously consider to bring an amendment in the Act so that
    the hardships faced by the persons convicted by the court-
    martial are avoided.

C          17. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

    R.P.                                  Writ Petition disposed of.