K.N. Phaneendra, J.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant has filed a Memo dated 02.06.2017, which reads thus :-

"The appellant herein has filed the appeals against conviction for the offences punishable under section 397 of IPC in both the appeals. It is submitted that the appellant herein does not intend to argue the appeal on merits but the appellant herein would like to argue the matter on sentence as such this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hear the appeal only on sentence and pass Judgment accordingly without touching the appeal on merits in the interest of justice."

2. In view of the memo filed and the submissions made, the learned counsel for the appellant is heard with regard to the sentence passed by the Trial Court in both the cases.

3. It is seen from the records of Crl.A. No. 699/2012 that appellant has filed the appeals against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in SC No. 27/2011, for the offence punishable under section 397 of IPC. After holding him guilty, the Trial Court has convicted him for the offence punishable under section 397 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months;

Further, it is seen from the records of Cri. A. No. 700/2012, that the appellant has filed the appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in SC No. 84/2007 for the offence punishable under section 397 of IPC. After holding him guilty, the Trial Court has convicted him for the offence punishable under section 397 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant in both the cases that the Trial Court has not taken into consideration the custody of the accused during trial of the accused in SC No. 27/2011, in respect of the punishment imposed by the Trial Court in SC No. 84/2007 which has already been undergone by the accused. It is contended in both the cases, that throughout, the accused has already undergone more than six years, 11 months of imprisonment and he will be completing 7 years imprisonment within a period of one month. Therefore, the previous imprisonment undergone by the accused has not been considered by the Trial Court and not given set-off in respect of the imprisonment already undergone by the accused. Therefore, the learned counsel contends that the accused person may be released from jail considering that he has already undergone substantial period of imprisonment, treating the period of imprisonment already undergone by him as sufficient punishment.

5. In this regard, it is worth to refer the date of arrest and the period of detention undergone by the accused in both the cases.

6. It is seen from the records, that, sofar as SC No. 84/2007 is concerned, incident was occurred on 09.11.2006. The accused was arrested on 12.11.2006, whereas the offence sofar it relates to the case in SC No. 27/2011 is occurred, the incident was occurred on 10.08.2010 and the accused was arrested on 12.11.2010. On calculation, from 12.11.2006 the accused had been in custody till 05.03.2007 i.e., (113 days). Thereafter, he was released on bail on 05.03.2007. Therefore, he was in custody in connection with SC No. 84/2007 for a period of 113 days.

7. Again he was arrested on 12.11.2010 in connection with SC No. 27/2011 and since then he has been in Judicial Custody. From 12.11.2010 uptill date i.e., 02.06.2017, if it is calculated, it is seen that he has been in Judicial Custody nearly for a total period of 6 years, 11 months. When the trial in SC No. 27/2011 was going on, throughout the accused was in custody. But during the period of trial in SC No. 27/2011, for a period of 113 days of detention, has not been taken into consideration by the Trial Court. Whether set-off was given by the Trial Court or not is to