M.M.PUNCHHI, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a life convict. He was awarded life sentence under three counts by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, vide judgment and order dated 28.6.1978. The petitioner was committed to prison in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Later under Section 3(2) of the Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950, he was transferred to the State of Punjab presumably because he was a resident of the State of Punjab. He has approached this court for grant of the following reliefs : - 1. For determination and declaration as to which Government i.e. the Himachal Pradesh Government or the Punjab Government, should exercise the power for remission of sentence under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. For declaration that he was below 20 years of age on the date of the commission of the offence and as such his case would be governed on the principle that he was an offender of less than 20 years of age entitling him to have his premature release case initiated and decided after the lapse of six years actual sentence and ten years sentence inclusive of remission, as to offenders above 20 years of age, a different scale applies i.e. 8 -1/2 years actual sentence and 14 years sentence inclusive of remissions.
(2.) SO far as the first point is concerned, the answer is available in sub -section (7) of Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as under : - "In this section and in Section 433, the expression "appropriate Government" means - (a) in cases where the sentence is for an offence against, or the order referred to in sub -section (6) is passed under, any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, the Central Government; (b) in other cases, the Government of the State within which the offender is sentenced or the said order is passed."
(3.) SO the appropriate Government in the instant case would be the Government of Himachal Pradesh who would be empowered to exercise powers under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even otherwise, in their returns, the Punjab Government has specifically disowned responsibility for deciding such a matter and the State of Himachal Pradesh has specifically owned responsibility to do the needful in the matter at an appropriate time. Thus it is determined and declared that it as the State of Himachal Pradesh who would exercise powers under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the case of the petitioner. With regard to the age, the State of Himachal Pradesh in paragraph 10 of its return taken the stand that the age of the petitioner on the date of the commission of the offence, as recorded by the police, was 22 years, which age had been recorded by the learned trial Judge in his judgment. The copy of the judgment which has been shown to me does reflect that in the array of the parties, the age of the petitioner has been shown as 22 years. However, nothing in the body of the judgment is suggestive of the fact that question of age was over gone into. There seemingly was no issue in that regard. So, ex facie on the judgment, there is no finding on the age of the petitioner except descriptively given in the array of the parties.;