The expression "imprisonment" has neither been defined in the Penal Code nor in the Criminal Procedure Code and in the Prevention of Corruption Act. Neither in the Codes nor in the Act we find any indication as to where a sentence of imprisonment is to be served or in other words, where the accused convict is to be detained. Therefore, we are to take aid from Law Lexicon and the judge made law.

Wharton in his Law Lexicon quoted the definition of 'imprisonment' given by Tomlin as under: "Imprisonment the restraint of a person's liberty under the custody of another. It extends in law to confinement not only in jail, but in a house, or stocks, or to holding a man in the street, etc. for in all these the person so re­strained is said to be a prisoner, so long as he has not his liberty freely to go about his busi­ness as at other times." In his treatise Law Lexicon with Legal Maxims, 2nd Edn. Vankata Ramaya quoted the fol­lowing observation of Coke which was quoted by Coleridge, J. in the well known case of Bird Vs. Jones, (1845) 7 Q.C. 742 " Every restraint of the liberty of a free man will be an imprisonment, although he be not within the walls of any common prison." and in the same book the learned author also quoted the following observation made in P. Nara-sayya Pantula Vs. Capt. R.A.G. Stuart, (1865) 2 M.H.C.R. 396 which decision was also consid­ered and followed in 1945 Mad. 313:-

"Therefore, a direction by the Court that a person shall be confined in the Court premises till the Court rises constitutes imprisonment; imprisonment within the meaning .of the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure."

Now let us examine the judicial pronounce­ments in this regard. There are divergent opinions on this point. In the case of Kunhi Bava vs. Emperor, 1929 Mad. 226 Jackson, J. sitting singly held that punishment by imprisonment under Penal Code means that the offender shall go to jail and imprison­ment till rising of the Court is evasion of the law. Again in a later decision in re Thammana Ramalin-gayya, 1942 Mad. 723 Horwill, J. sitting sing­ly observed: “Even in cases where the alternative of fine is not permissible by law, it is objectionable to sentence persons to imprisonment till the rising of the Court; because it is not a form of imprisonment recognised by law, and it is used to cir­cumvent the provisions of law that require a sentence of imprisonment in jail for a particular term." In re Muthu Nadar, 1945 Mad. 313 a Divi­sion Bench of Madras High Court after reviewing a number of cases including the aforesaid cases took a contrary view and held: “Therefore, a direction by the Court that a person shall be confined in the Court premises till the Court rises constitutes imprisonment and incur judgment, imprisonment within the meaning of the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure." In the case of Mallukhand Sheikh and an­other Vs. The King, A.I.R. 1949 Calcutta 104 their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court had occa­sion to deal with similar matter. In that case the trial Court convicted the petitioner under section 297 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for one day and to fine of Rs. 100/- and his son was sentenced to be detained till the ris­ing of the Court. Their Lordships in dealing with this matter observed that rigorous imprisonment for one day and detention till the rising of the Court are not different punishments.

( Jalaluddin Ahmed Chowdhury Vs. State, 1988, 17 CLC (HCD) [4293] )