Point of Law: Section 427 provides that when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.

ORDER :

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth ‘the Code’) challenging the letter No.7108/Warrant/2022, dated 6.8.2022 issued by the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur whereby benefit of Section 428 of the Code has been denied.

2. Facts of the case are that the present petitioner was accused in 3 cases. It is alleged that while he was working as Director of IWC Marketing Company Private Limited, he allured various persons to deposit their money with assurance to double the amount, and he is behind the bars since 27.6.2016. The first case was registered under Crime No.166/2016 in which the petitioner was arrested on 27.6.2016 for offence under Section 420 of the IPC, Section 3 & 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and under Section 10 of the CG Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act, 2005’). A special criminal case No.6/2016 has been conducted before the Sessions Judge/Special Judge (CG Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005) wherein a judgment was passed on 27th March, 2018 holding the petitioner guilty under Section 420 of the IPC. However, the petitioner was acquitted of the charge under Section 10 of the Act, 2005 and Section 3 & 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2 lakhs, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 6 months under Section 420 of the IPC. It has also been ordered to set off of the period under Section 428 of the Code of police custody from 27.6.2018 to 28.6.2016 and judicial custody from 29.6.2016 to 27th March, 2018, total 639 days.

3. On the similar allegations, another offence under Crime No.246/2016 was registered under Sections 420 and 409 of the IPC and the petitioner was arrested on 20th December, 2016. Charge sheet was filed on 30.12.2016 and the said matter was tried by the JMFC, Raipur in Criminal Case No.24227/2016, and the judgment was delivered on 6.7.2021 wherein the petitioner was sentenced to undergo SI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one month, separately, under section 420 of the IPC. It has also been ordered to set off of the period in judicial custody during trial from 20th December, 2016 to 6th July, 2021 i.e. for 1658 days.

4. It is further averred that another Crime No.16/2017 was registered at Police Station Rakhi for offence under Sections 420 & 409/34 of the IPC and Section 10 of the Act, 2005, in which the petitioner was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 11.7.2022 passed in MCRC No.3503/2022. The trial Court has issued the release order in which the petitioner has been informed that as per Jail Rule in second case i.e. Criminal Case No.24227/2016, he would get the benefit of set off under Section 428 of the Code only for the period of 1 year 3 months 8 days, pre-trial detention and not for the period as counted by the trial Court as 1658 days. Therefore, the petitioner could not be released even after completion of the sentence. Hence this petition has been filed seeking direction against the jail authorities to count the sentence in both the Sessions Trials to run concurrently.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent authorities should obey and honour the calculation made by the trial Court. Reliance is placed in the matter of In Ref. High Court of Chhatisgarh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh {CRMP No.1458/2017, decided on 26.9.2018} in which it has been categorically held that the official instructions in the absence of any statutory support cannot override the law in view of Section 427 and 428 of the CrPC and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali, AIR 2001 SC 2255 : (2001) 6 SCC 311. Therefore, learned counsel prays to release the petitioner from