IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 8-9   OF  2010

(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.6599-6600/2009)

RANJIT SINGH                               Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

STATE OF PUNJAB                            Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.  

The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for  

life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.),  

10 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 I.P.C.  

and 10 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 333  

I.P.C.  While  sentencing  the  appellant,  the  Additional  

Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, did not grant him benefit of  

set  off  under  Section  428  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  

Procedure, on the basis of the judgment of this Court in  

Kartar Singh vs. State of Haryana, [AIR 1982 SC 1439 =  

1982 (3) SCC 1].   

-2-

A Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of  

Bhagirath vs. Delhi Administration, [1985 (2) SCC 580],  

has  specifically  overruled  Kartar  Singh's  judgment  

(supra), the relevant paragraph of which reads as under:  

“We have considered with great care the  reasoning  upon  which  the  decision  in  Kartar  Singh (1982 3 SCC 1) proceeds. With  respect,  we are unable to agree with the decision. We  have  already  discussed  why  imprisonment  for  life is imprisonment for a term, within the  meaning of section 428. We would like to add  that we find it difficult to agree that the  expressions  'imprisonment  for  life'  and  'imprisonment for a term' are used either in  the Penal Code or in the Criminal Procedure  Code  in  contradistinction  with  each  other.  Sections 304, 305, 307 and 394 of the Penal  Code undoutedly provide that persons guilty of  the  respective  offences,  shall  be  punished  with  imprisonment  for  life  or  with  imprisonment  for  a  term  not  exceeding  a  certain number of years. But, that is the only  manner  in  which  the  Legislature  could  have  expressed its intention that persons who are  guilty  of  those  offences  shall  be  punished  with either of the sentences mentioned in the  respective  sections.  The  circumstances  on  which the learned Judges have placed reliance  in Kartar Singh, do not afford any evidence,  intrinsic or otherwise, of the use of the two  expressions  in  contradistinction  with  each  other. Two or more expressions are often used  in the same section in order to exhaust the  alternatives  which  are  available  to  the  Legislature. That does not mean that there is,  necessarily,  an  antithesis  between  those  expressions.”   

-3-

In our considered view, the appellant is entitled  

to the benefit of set off under Section 428 of the Code  

of Criminal Procedure.  

The appeals are partly allowed and disposed of in  

the above terms.

.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)

.....................J (A.K. PATNAIK)

New Delhi;

January 4, 2010.