Penalty of Transportation [Penal Code]

  

Penalty of Transportation [Penal Code]

Content

• Ø Introduction of Criminal Law
• Ø Kinds of Punishment
• Ø Definition of Transportation [Imprisonment for Life]
• Ø Meaning of Section [55] to Section [59]
• Ø Relevant cases of Transportation or imprisonment for life
• Ø Amended of Punishment of Transportation
• Ø Repealed Section for Punishment of Transportation
• Ø Relevant case of Transportation or imprisonment for life after amended
• Ø Conclusion

 

Introduction of criminal law

Criminal law is enacted by English government on 1^st may 1861. A system of law that deals with the punishment of people who commit crimes; a law belonging to this system. 1874 in Myanmar According to Regulation Law No. 9, it came into force in the Rakhine. In 1885, after Upper Myanmar fell under the British rule, in 1886, From January (1st) it was designated as a state of India and with Act No. 20 of the same year, from November (29th) this great punishment was put into effect in all parts of Myanmar except Shan State. Then in 1895 Regulation No. (1) with exceptions in Kachin Hill areas and In 1896, Regulation Law (5) also imposed power on the Chin people in the Chin Mountains. After the independent of Myanmar in 1948, this law has been translated by the Myanmar law translation committee from English to Myanmar language. It includes 33 Chapters and 511 Sections. The main provisions of this law are Offences, Punishments and General Exceptions.

According to the above paragraph, the criminal law of the main provisions of the punishment are the things what we will present.

Kinds of Punishment

          There are five kinds of punishments, they are namely:-

1.       Death

2.       Imprisonment for life or transportation

3.       Imprisonment

4.       Forfeiture of property and

5.       Fine

Definition Of Imprisonment For Life Or Transportation

          At the time of the enactment of the criminal law, there was an intention to send the accused who had been sentenced to an additional sentence overseas. For that purpose, the defendants who were sent to an island from Burma were sent to Kapali Island. However, Section 368(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that the place where the person affected by deportation must not be determined. According to Sections 29 to 32 of the Prisoners Act, it is not necessary to send the victim to an island to the sea. The prison authorities have the right to imprison him as a prisoner.

          Transportation means that the accused will be imprisoned until death. However, transportation is usually only 20 years in prison. Section 57 also stipulates that the transportation must be counted according to 20 years.

ပြစ်မှုဆိုင်ရာဥပဒေကို ပြဌာန်းစဉ်က တစ်ကျွန်းပိုဒဏ် ကျခံရသည့် တရားခံအား ပင်လယ်ရပ်ခြားသို့ ပို့ထားရန် ရည်ရွယ်ချက်ရှိသည်။ ထိုရည်ရွယ်ချက်အတိုင်းပင် တစ်ချိန်က မြန်မာပြည်မှတစ်ကျွန်းပို့ဒဏ်ခံရသည့် တရားခံများကို ကပ္ပလီကျွန်းသို့ပို့ခဲ့သည်။ သို့ရာတွင် ပြစ်မှုဆိုင်ရာကျင့်ထုံးဉပဒေပုဒ်မ ၃၆၈(၂)၌ တစ်ကျွန်းပို့ဒဏ်ခံရသူကို မည်သည့်နေရာသို့ ပို့ရမည်ဟု သတ်မှတ်ခြင်း မပြုလုပ်ရဟု ပြဌာန်းထားသည့်အပြင်၊ အကျဉ်းသားများ အက်ဥပဒေပုဒ်မ ၂၉ မှ ၃၂ အရ တစ်ကျွန်းပို့ဒဏ်ခံရသူအား ပင်လယ်ရပ်ခြင်းသို့ ပို့ရန်လိုသည်ဟု မဆိုထားသည့် အလျောက်၊ ထောင်အာဏာပိုင်တို့သည် ထိုသူအား ထောင်ဒဏ်ကျ အကျဉ်းသား နည်းတူ အကျဉ်းချထားခွင့်ရှိပေသည်။

တစ်သက်တစ်ကျွန်းဒဏ်ဆိုသည်မှာ တရားခံသည် သေသည်အထိ အကျဉ်းခံရမည့် သဘောသက်ရောက်သည်။ သို့ရာတွင် သာမန်အားဖြင့် တစ်သက်တစ်ကျွန်းဒဏ်ခံရသူသည် အနှစ် ၂၀သာ အကျဉ်းခံရသည်။ ပုဒ်မ၅၇တွင်လည်း တစ်သက်တစ်ကျွန်းဒဏ်ကို နှစ်ပေါင်း ၂၀ နှင့်အညီ ရေတွက်ရမည်ဟု သတ်မှတ်ထားသည်။

Imprisonment for life or Transportation is provided from Section [55]to Section [59] in Penal Code of Myanmar.

The offenses punishable by life imprisonment in the Criminal Code are: Section 123, 124(a), 125, 128, 130 to 132, 194, 195, 225, 226, 232, 238, 255, 302(2), 304, 305, 307, 311, 313, 314, 326, 329, 364, 371, 376, 377, 388, 389, 394, 396, 400, 409, 412, 413, 436, 449, 459, 460, 467, 472, 474, 475, 477, 511

 

ပြစ်မှုဆိုင်ရာဥပဒေတွင် တစ်သက်တစ်ကျွန်းဒဏ်ခံထိုက်သည့် ပြစ်မှုများမှာ-

ပုဒ်မ ၁၂၃၊ ၁၂၄(က)၊ ၁၂၅၊ ၁၂၈၊ ၁၃၀မှ ၁၃၂၊ ၁၉၄၊ ၁၉၅၊ ၂၂၅၊ ၂၂၆၊ ၂၃၂၊ ၂၃၈၊ ၂၅၅၊ ၃၀၂(၂)၊ ၃၀၄၊ ၃၀၅၊ ၃၀၇၊ ၃၁၁၊ ၃၁၃၊ ၃၁၄၊ ၃၂၆၊ ၃၂၉၊ ၃၆၄၊ ၃၇၁၊ ၃၇၆၊ ၃၇၇၊ ၃၈၈၊ ၃၈၉၊ ၃၉၄၊ ၃၉၆၊ ၄၀၀၊ ၄၀၉၊ ၄၁၂၊ ၄၁၃၊ ၄၃၆၊ ၄၄၉၊ ၄၅၉၊ ၄၆၀၊ ၄၆၇၊ ၄၇၂၊ ၄၇၄၊ ၄၇၅၊ ၄၇၇၊ ၅၁၁ တို့ဖြစ်သည်။

Section (55)             In every case in which sentence of transportation for life shall have been passed, the President of the Union may, without the consent of the offender, commit the punishment of either description for a term not exceeding fourteen year.

Section (56)             *         *         *         *         *         *

Section (57)             In calculating fractions of terms of punishment, transportation for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to transportation for twenty years.

Section (58)             In every case in which a sentence of transportation is passed, the offender, until he is transported, shall be dealt with in the same manner as if sentenced to rigorous imprisonment, and shall be held to have been under going his sentence of transportation during the term of his imprisonment.

Section (59)             In every case in which an offender is punishable with imprisonment for a term of seven years or upwards, it shall be competent to the Court which sentences such offender, instead of awarding sentence of imprisonment, to sentence the offender to transportation for a term not less than seven years, and not exceeding the term for which by this Code such offender is liable to imprisonment.

Section (302) (1)      Whoever commits murder-

                     (a)      being under sentence of imprisonment for a term of twenty years or

                     (b)      with premeditation, or

                     (c)      in the course of committing any offence punishable under this Code with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, shall be punished with death, and shall also be liable to fine.

                     (2)      Whoever commits murder in any other case shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend  to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

Section (326)            Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 355, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deketerious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood or by means of an animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for aterm of twenty years, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

ကိုမြင့်အောင်နှင့် ပြည်ထောင်စုဆိုရှယ်လစ်သမ္မတမြန်မာနိုင်ငံတော်

[၁၉၇၆၊ မ၊တ၊စ၊ စာ-၁၁၄]

          အမှုတွင် မောင်မြင့်အောင်နှင့် မောင်ဆင့်တို့သည် တစ်ဦးကဓားချွန်၊ တစ်ဦးကတုတ်ကိုင်ဆောင်၍ ဘက်ပြိုင်ရန်ဖြစ်ကြောင်း အငြင်းမထွက်ချေ။ မောင်မြင့်အောင်ကိုယ်တိုင်ကလည်း မောင်ဆင့်ကို တုတ်နှင့်ရိုက်၊ ဓားချွန်နှင့်ထိုးကြောင်း ဝန်ခံသည်။ ဆရာဝန်က မောင်ဆင့်သေဆုံးရသော ဒဏ်ရာမှာ ဓားရှည်၊ ဓားမ၊ ပုဆိန်တို့အရ ဖြစ်နိုင်သည်ဟု ထွက်ဆိုသည်။ သို့သော် မောင်မြင့်အောင်နှင့် မောင်ဆင့်တို့ အပြန်အလှန် ရန်ဖြစ်၍ အပြန်အလှန် ဒဏ်ရာရရှိပြီး မောင်မြင့်အောင်ကိုယ်တိုင်က တုတ်နှင့် ရိုက်ကြောင်း၊ ဓားချွန်နှင့် ထိုးကြောင်း ဝန်ခံထားသောအမှုတွင် အခြားသူတစ်ဦးတစ်ယောက်က ပုဆိန်နှင့်ပေါက်နိုင်သည်။ ဓားချွန်နှင့် ခုတ်နိုင်သည်ဟူ၍ တွေးယူကြရန်လိုအပ်မည် မဟုတ်ပေ။ ပြစ်မှုကျူးလွန်ခြင်းနှင့် ပတ်သက်၍ စဉ်းစားရာတွင် မောင်ဆင့်ကို မောင်မြင့်အောင်အပြင် အခြားလူများကလည်း ဝိုင်းရိုက်ကြသေးကြောင်း သက်သေခံချက်ရှိနေသည်ဖြစ်သောကြောင့် မောင်မြင့်အောင်အပေါ်တွင် ပြစ်မှုဆိုင်ရာဥပဒေပုဒ်မ ၃၀၂(၂)အရ အပြစ်ဒဏ်သတ်မှတ်ရမည့်အစား၊ ပုဒ်မ၃၂၆အရ ပြစ်ဒဏ်သတ်မှတ်ခြင်းက ပိုမိုလျော်ကန်ပေမည်။

          Before the Penal Code was amended, the relevant cases of transportation are as Follows,

·       ထိုင်းနိုင်ငံရဲတပ်ဖွဲ့နှင့် ဇော်လင်းပါ(၁)

·       Po Kun vs The King

·       Maung Gyi And Two Others v.King-Emperor.

ထိုင်းနိုင်ငံရဲတပ်ဖွဲ့နှင့် ဇော်လင်းပါ(၁)

              ထိုင်းနိုင်ငံမှာ အလုပ်လုပ်နေတဲ့ မြန်မာအလုပ်သမားတွေဖြစ်တဲ့ ဇော်လင်းနှင့် ဝင်းဇော်ထွန်းတို့ဟာ ဗြိတိသျှနိုင်ငံသား ဒေးဗစ်မေးလာကို လူသတ်မှု၊ ဟန်နာကို မုဒိမ်းမှု၊ လူသတ်မှုတို့နဲ့ ၂၀၁၅ မှာ သေဒဏ်ချမှတ်ခံထားရတာ ဖြစ်ပါတယ်။ အဆင့်ဆင့် အယူခံတက်ခဲ့ပေမဲ့ သူတို့ရဲ့ နောက်ဆုံးအယူခံ ၂၀၁၉ သြဂုတ်လမှာ ရှုံးနိမ့်ခဲ့ပါတယ်။ ထိုင်းအစိုးရက နိုင်ငံတော်ပြန်တမ်းအဖြစ် ထုတ်ပြန်လိုက်တဲ့ ထိုင်းဘုရင်ရဲ့ လွတ်ငြိမ်းသက်သာခွင့်အရ မြန်မာ အလုပ်သမား ဝင်း နဲ့ ဇော်ဟာ သေဒဏ်ကနေလွတ်မြောက်ပြီး တစ်သက်တစ်ကျွန်းပြစ်ဒဏ်ကို ပြောင်းလဲကျခံရမှာ ဖြစ်ပါတယ်။ လွတ်ငြိမ်းခွင့် ကြေညာချက်ကို ထိုင်းအစိုးရက သြဂုတ်လ ၁၄ ရက်မှာ ကြေညာခဲ့တာ ဖြစ်ပါတယ်။ ထိုင်းဘုရင်ရဲ့ မွေးနေ့ ဇူလိုင် ၂၈ ရက်မှာ အခုလို လွတ်ငြိမ်းသက်သာခွင့်တွေပေးလေ့ရှိပြီး အဲဒီသက်သာခွင့်အရ ဝင်း‌‌နဲ့ဇော်လည်း အခုလို ပြစ်ဒဏ်လျှောပေါ့ခံရတာ ဖြစ်တယ်။ ကြေညာချက် ပုဒ်မ ၁၅ အရ ဝင်းနဲ့ ဇော်တို့ အခုလို သေဒဏ်ပြစ်ဒဏ်ကနေ တစ်သက်တစ်ကျွန်းပြစ်ဒဏ်ကို ပြောင်းလဲကျခံရမှာ ဖြစ်ပါတယ်။

PO KUN vs THE KING

          The appellant Nga Po Kun has been convicted of the murder of his wife Ma Hla Myaing and of voluntarily causing grievous hurt to a fellow-villager Maung Ba Maung by means of a da on the 20th November 1937 at Kyaukka village in the Monywa District and has been sentenced to suffer death for the former and to suffer ten years' regorous imprisonment for the latter, the sentences to run concurrently. The only prayer of the appellant in this appeal is that the sentence of death might be altered to a sentence of imprisonment for such term as this Court might deem suitable in the circumstances of this case.

          The degree of provocation, small as it was, due to his suspicion of his wife's infidelity is, in the circumstances of the case, quite insufficient to warrant a reduction of the sentence of death to one of transportation for life, even if this Court has the power to do so. The Court has no such power in the present case as the case falls within section 303 of the Penal Code, which provides:

          "Whoever being under sentence of transportation for life commits murder shall be punished with death”.

          The appellant was convicted of murder under section 302,Indian Penal Code,and sentenced to suffer transportation for life on the  12th May 1923 by the Court of Session, Shwebo Division, but he was released in January 1937 by an order of the Government under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure remitting, subject to conditions therein set out, the remainder of the punishment to which he had been sentenced.

Maung Gyi And Two Others v.King-Emperor.

          Held,that it is not sufficient for joint responsiblity for an offence under section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,that the offence actually committed was likely to occur as a result of the several persons acting together,but that theexistence of a common intention being sole. test of joint responsibility,itmust be proved that the common act for which the accused were to be made responsible was acted in furtherance of that common intention.

          On the 6th of November last, there was a pwe in the east village of Kyauksayitkon.A number of persons belonging to the west village went to see the pwe.There was a feud between these two branches of the village.After watching the pwe for a short time the west villagers in a body left.This seems to have been taken as an affront by the villagers of the east village.They were stopped at the gate of the village and a crowd collected round them,they were finally told to leave, but the gate was not opened for them.After getting out they were told not come again,where upon a boy amongst the west villagers called out that they should be beaten, the west villagers ran away followed by number of men of the east village armed with sticks.

          The deceased was caught and beaten by three men who are said to be the threeappellants.Deceased received the blow on the top of the head which caused a severe fracture in the base of his skull.He received another blow on the forehead and according to the evidence,  the three appellants,  one after other, then gave more blows.This appears clearly to be an exaggeration as only two injuires were found on the body.The blows received result in a fracture of the vault of the skull and also the base of skull and cuased dealth.The learned Sessions Judge helded that it was impossible yo say which of the assilants struck the fatal blow,but he found that all three were acting in prosecuting of a common intention to cause grevious hurt,  and sentenced each of the three appellants to seven year transportation.

          The three witnesses who are running away with the deceased pursued by the east villagers have given evidence.Tun Myat deposes that he was running close to the deceased,that they were over-taken by the three appellants who struck the deceased.He ran to one side and hid behind the bush,from there he saw one of the accused strike him again and then saw all three of them strike one after the another.There is either a contradiction or a mistake in the record,apparently the latter,as to which the accused it was who struck the first blow.In one part of his statement he says that Maung Maung gives the first blow to Po Thon on the head and the latter fell on his haunches.In cross examination he says,'' As I turned round to look at the east villagers who were pursuing us,I saw Maung Gyi strike Po Thon on the forehead first .'' The other two men will ahead.Tha Chein said he heard the sound of someone being beaten,he and Po Hte ran and hid under a bush,from there he saw the appellants striking Po Thon ,who was then prostrate.The other man Po Hte says the same and says that he saw Maung Gyi strike him on the forehead with a stick,and Po Thon fell.Another witness San Mya says that he hid in the jower field near the scene of the assault ,and he saw Maung Gyi hit Po Thon on the head with a stick,Po Thon fell,when Po Maung struck him on the head,then Po Tin struck Po Thon,then the three men beat one after another.Tun Myat went out to help Po Thon,and accused advanced to strike him,but he told them not to do it as it was only himself and that the accused then went away.The deceased was helped to the village,and a report was at once made to the "Thugyi" against the three appellants.The "Thugyi" alleges that Po Tin had been seen to throw his stick into the "jowar" field ,and it was then recovered from there and taken possession of.The following morning two sticks were picked up near the sence of the assault.It is,however,by no means certain that the Exhibit sticks were ones actually used by the accused. The headman sent a villager off to the police-station to make report without telling him exactly what he was to report in the First Information Report.The report does not specify who the assailants were, but mentions that Tun Myat had sated that he saw Maung Gyi and Po Maung each having a stick near their village gate.After considering this evidence we are of opinion that there is no reasonable doubt that the three appellants were the assailants of the deceased .There is no question that a number of villagers of theeast village did pursue those of the west village.There is no doubt that the deceased was overtaken and beaten and we can find no adequate reason to suppose that the three eyewitness could not see,and did not recognize, who the assailants were.They knew them very well, some from their childhood .There was a bright moon on the night in question and they were not far off.There is no reason why,being in a position to see who the real assailants were they should have let them off and falsely named the three appellants.That they did name them immediately is proved .They were arrested without delay and considering all the circumstances,we are of opinion that it is established that the three appellants ran after the west villagers caught up to Po Thom and beat him with sticks.Having regard to the dis crepancy or the mistake on the record with reference to Tun Myat's evidence,we are unable to hold it proved which of the apellants inflicted the fatal blow. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to convict any of them of the offence of murder,and the rule in revision will be discharged.As to what offence the three appellants should properly be convicted of necessitates a consideration of the bearing of section 34of the Indian Penal Code.

          The common intention of the three appellants was to cause grievous hurt and that the first two who actually caused grievous hurt and also Po Tin who participated in the assault, are guilty of an offence punishable under section 325, Indian Penal Code. The appeal therefore failsland the convictions and sentences will be confirmed.He should have passed a sentence of transportation under the provisions of section 59, Indian Penal Code.

          Punishment of Transportation is amendment by Section 7 of Penal Code ( No. of Law 6/2016).

          Relevant case of after Punishment of Transportation is amendment is “The Union of Myanmar” Vs “Aung Myint @ Arr Chin with 2”.

 

The Union of Myanmar Vs Aung Myint (or)Arrchin with 2

          Deputy Chief Justice U Khin Maung Lat, In front of Supreme Court Judges U Myint Aung and U San Tin Tri.

          1993; According to Section 19 (a) of the Law on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances is inconsistent with the law.

Decision.

          1993 Section 19 (a) of the Law on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances provides that a person convicted of a crime may be sentenced to a minimum of 10  years to rest of their lives in prison.

Further decision.

          1993 It has been observed that there is no article in the law on narcotic drugs and psychotropic drugs that provides for life imprisonment. The Supreme Court says that the life sentence that the Appellant is given by is not inconsistent with the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances is inconsistent with the law.

For The Appellant:   U Myo Chit, Director of

                                     Attorney General's

                                     Office,Mandalay

For The Applicants:   Self-inflicted(absence)

                                       Guilty

          Shan State Court (Taunggyi District), 1993 against Aung Myint (or) Arrchin and Sai Sawnandi, the appellants in Criminal Case No. 34/96. According to Article 20 (A) / 21 of the Law on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Drugs, each is ordered to be sentenced to death. Aung Myint (or) Arrchin and Sai Sawnandi were not satisfied with this order and appealed to the Supreme Court (Yangon) in Criminal Appeal No. 555/96. The Supreme Court overturned death sentence approval No. 12/96 against them. The Supreme Court revoke the death sentence under Section 20(a)/21 of the Law on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and sentence them to life imprisonment under Section 19(a) of the law.

          The Director of the Attorney General's Office, who acted for the state, ordered the Supreme Court to appeal to the defendants. According to 1993; Section 20 (A) / 21 of the Law on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, cancel the order that each person be sentenced to death and Section 19 (A) of the law it was ordered that he be sentenced to life imprisonment. Section 19 (a) of the 1993 Law on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances stipulates that the person who commits the crime shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a minimum of (10) years to a maximum of unlimited years of imprisonment. There is no provision in any section of the law that there is a right to be sentenced to life imprisonment. In order to be able to impose more than (20) years of imprisonment, which is equal to life imprisonment, it is submitted that the sentence of indefinite imprisonment has been imposed.

          1993 Article 19 (a) of the Law on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances has been committed; It is seen that the person convicted of the crime has the right to be sentenced to a minimum of (10) years of imprisonment to a maximum of unlimited years of imprisonment. 1993 Life in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act has no provision in any section of the law that there is a right to be sentenced to life imprisonment. The life imprisonment that had been award by the Supreme Court was not provided in any section of the law.

          Therefore, The Supreme Court allowed this appeal. According to 1993; Section 19 (a) of the Law on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic the appellants Aung Myint (or) Arr chin and Sai Sawnandi were sentence by the Supreme Court (Yangon) that they had to serve (20) years of rigorous imprisonment instead of life imprisonment.

          Section 56 is omitted by 1948 The Union of Myanmar (Succession of Law),

          Section 57 to Section 59 is repealed by Section 8 of Penal Code (No of Law 10/2019).

          This what we are present about “Punishment of Transportation”. But now “Punishment of Transportation” is amendment with imprisonment for 20 Years.

#Admint3am of LKS