1989 PLP 1514 (MLD)
SUBE SINGH and others — Petitioners Versus STATE OF HARYANA and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1514 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Bench Members | Ranganath Misra and M. N. Venkatachaliah, JJ |
| Parties | SUBE SINGH and others — Petitioners Versus STATE OF HARYANA and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Borstal Act (II of 1926) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1514 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Borstal Act (II of 1926) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1514 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of India bench comprising: Ranganath Misra and M. N. Venkatachaliah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1514 (MLD) (SUBE SINGH and others — Petitioners Versus STATE OF HARYANA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 2(4) & 5--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302--Benefit under S.5--Word "punishable" means liable to be punished--Offence under S.302, P.P.C. is punishable with death--Benefit under S.5 cannot be claimed by accused convicted under S.302, P.P.C. even if he is sentenced to life imprisonment. The word "punishable" carries a meaning "liable to be punished". Since the offence under S.302, Penal Code, is punishable with death, the provisions of the Punjab Borstal Act would not cover an offence under S.302, Penal Code and the benefit would not therefore be available to an accused convicted for the offence under S.302, P.P.C. The word "punishable" is ordinarily defined as deserving of or capable or liable to punishment, punishable within statute providing that defendant may have the peremptory challenges if offence charged is "punishable" with death or by life imprisonment; means deserving of or liable to punishment; capable of being punished by law or right, may be punished, or liable to be punished, and not must be punished. In the sense given to the word, punishable, there can be no doubt that the offence of murder is punishable with death even though the punishment awarded is not death but imprisonment for life.
Judgment & Decree
"In Hava Singh's case (AIR 1987 SC 2001) the definition was not placed for consideration before the Court and, therefore, the conclusion which has been reached is not correct. The Punjab Borstal Act does not have application to an offence punishable under Section 302 of I. P. C". This being a decision of a larger Bench we are bound by it.
6. In the Webster's third New International Dictionary the following meaning has been given to the word `punishable'
"Deserving of, or liable to, punishment: capable of being punished by law or right."
7. Aiyar's The Law Lexicon (Reprint Edition 1987) gives the meaning of `punishable' thus:- "The word `punishable' as used in statutes which declare that certain offences are punishable in certain way, means liable to be punished in the way designated."
8. In Bouvier's Law Dictionary, the meaning of the word `punishable' has been given as `liable to punishment'. In `Words and Phrases -- Permanent Edition', the following meaning has been given: -- "The word `punishable' in a statute stating that a crime. is punishable by a designated penalty or term of years in the State prison limits the penalty or term of years to the amount or term of years Mated in the statute.
9. The word `punishable' is ordinarily defined as deserving of or capable or liable to punishment, punishable within statute providing that defendant may have the peremptory challenges if offence charged is `punishable' with death or by life imprisonment: means deserving of or liable to punishment; capable of being punished by law or right, may be punished, or liable to be punished, and not must be punished. 9-A. `Corpus Juris Secundum' gives the meaning as:-- "Deserving of, or liable to, punishment: capable of being punished by law or right; said of persons or offences. The meaning of the term is not `must be punished', but `maybe punished', or `liable to be punished'. In the absence of a definition of `punishable' we have referred to these for gathering the exact meaning of the word. In the sense given to the word, as above. there can be no doubt that the offence of murder is punishable with death even though the punishment awarded is not death but imprisonment for life.
10. An earlier decision of this Court in Kunwar Bahadur v. State of U. P., 1980 Supp SCC 339: (AIR 1979 SC 1509), where a two Judge-Bench dealt with the provisions of the United Provinces Borstal Act 7 of 1938 was also relied upon. The judgment is a short one, detailed reference to the provisions of the United Provinces Act has not been made but Section 7 of the Act was referred to and it was observed:-- "Under this section where a prisoner is sentenced for transportation i.e. life imprisonment and is below the age of 21 years he should be sent to Borstal School where he cannot be detained for more than five years. The law thus contemplates that for such an offender the sentence of five years will be equivalent even to a higher sentence of life imprisonment." Obviously in the United Provinces Act, there is no definition of `offence' as available in the Punjab Act. Therefore, the decision in Kunwar Bahadur's case (supra) is not really material for our purpose. 11. `Punishable' carries a meaning liable to be punished' as indicated by the three Judge-Bench. Since the offence under Section 302 is punishable with death, the provisions of the Punjab Borstal Act could not cover an offence under Section 302 of I P C and the benefit would not therefore, be available to an accused convicted for the offence under Section 302, I P C.
12. During the hearing of the matters learned counsel for the petitioners had maintained that the provisions of the Punjab Act should be suitably amended to bring about uniformity in the law on the subject. This is a matter for the State and the Legislature and it is for them to consider whether the provisions should be suitably amended keeping the modern concept of punishment and treatment of adolescents in view.
13. Each of the writ petitions is dismissed. There would be no order for costs. M. B. A./39/F. C. Petitions dismissed.