ALTAMAS KABIR, CYRIAC JOSEPH
Atul Manubhai Parekh – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
The ratio decidendi of the case is that Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is clear and unambiguous in its scope, specifying that the period of detention undergone by an accused during investigation, enquiry, or trial of the same case before conviction can be set off against the sentence of imprisonment imposed on conviction. The Court held that this section applies only to pre-conviction detention in the same case, and not to detention or imprisonment in connection with other cases. Consequently, an accused who has been convicted in multiple cases and has undergone detention in those cases is not entitled to claim a set-off for periods of detention in other cases when sentenced in a new case. The purpose of Section 428 is to reduce the sentence by the amount of detention related solely to the same case, and not to aggregate detention periods across different cases.
JUDGMENT
Altamas Kabir, J. —
1. Crl. M.P. No.13384 of 2009 has been filed in Criminal Appeal No.164 of 2004, which was disposed of by this Court by judgment and order dated 7th August, 2009, upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 120-B and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days. By the same order, the appellant was also granted the benefit of set-off for the period of detention he had already undergone under Section 428 Cr.P.C. This application has been filed on behalf of the appellant, Atul Manubhai Parekh, for a direction that he be entitled to set-off of 30 days in the present case against the detention of 15 days already undergone by him.
2. The short point involved in this application is whether a person, who has been convicted in several cases and has suffered detention or imprisonment in connection therewith, would be entitled to the benefit of set-off in a separate case for the period of detention or imprisonment undergone by him in the other cases.
3. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant,
State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali [(2001) 6 SCC 311
State of Punjab vs.Madan Lal [(2009) 5 SCC 238]
Champalal Punjaji Shah vs. State of Maharashtra[(1982) 1 SCC 507]
Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana [(1984) 4 SCC348] Relied.(Para 8)
Government of A.P. vs. AnneVenkateswara Rao (1977) 3 SCC 298
Maliyakkal Abdul Azeez vs. Asstt. Collector,Kerala & Anr. [(2003) 2 SCC 439]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.