( 1 ) THE present petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is for setting aside an order dated October 3, 1985 of Shri Y. S. Jonwal, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was convicted by different courts in respect of five offences committed at different times and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of different periods. The contention of the petitioner is that after setting off under Section 428 Cr. P. C. of the period already spent by him as under-trial, he is entitled to release. The petitioner says that he was arrested on November 7, 1984, that all the sentences of imprisonment expired on August 7, 1985 and that he is wrongly being kept in jail. He applied to the learned magistrate for his release. The learned magistrate obtained report of the Superintendent Jail according to whose calculations, the terms of imprisonment expired on 20th May, 1985. On the basis of the said report, the learned magistrate rejected the application of the petitioner and directed that he shall remain in jail for undergoing the unexpired portion of sentence.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this court in K. C. Das v. State, 1979 Crl L J. 362. It was held that the principle of Section 428 Cr. P. C. for setting off the pre-conviction detention period of an accused against the sentence applied in all cases whether the accused was convicted in one case or many and whether simultaneously or at different times. Some further observations are contained in para 13 of the judgment which reads as under :

"if the sentences awarded on conviction are to run concurrently Section 427 applies. If sentences in the two cases of our illustration are not ordered to run concurrently, the remainder of the term of imprisonment, after adjustment of the pre-trial period already undergone in the second case, shall commence at the expiry of the term of imprisonment in the first case after setting off the pretrial detention period. In both cases he will be entitled to set off. "

( 4 ) IT is apparent from the above judgment that The pre-conviction or under-trial period is to be deducted from every sentence. Such pre-conviction period means the period between the date of arrest and the date of awarding of sentence. This principle applies irrespective of the fact whether the sentence, in different cases, are to run concurrently or consecutively. The only difference in respect of sentences directed to run consecutively i ( that after the pre-conviction period is deducted from every period of sentence, remainders or balances arc to be added together to arrive at the total sentence to be undergone. That is so because consecutive sentences arc to run one after the other. In the case of concurrent sentences all the aforesaid remainders or balances of the sentences (after deducting pre-conviction period) start running simultaneously

( 5 ) NOW, we are to apply the aforesaid principle in the present case The petitioner was convicted and sentenced in five cases. A chart showing different sentences awarded bydifferent courts on different dates was filed by the Superintendent Jail in the court of the magistrate. A copy of the said chart has been placed on the record of this court. The dates of conviction and the term of sentence taken out of the said chart readas under :

( 6 ) THE allegation of the petitioner is that be was arrested on Novemher 7, 1984. The learned co-unset for the State told that as per his information, the date of arrest was December 7, 19?4. We can make calculation separately while taking the date of arrest as November 7, 1984 as well as December 7,1984.

( 7 ) THE sentences mentioned at serial No. 3 and 4 were far such a small period that they expired during the pre-conviction or under-trial period. Therefore, we have to find out "remainders or balances" of sentences mentioned at serial No. 1, 2 and 5, after deducting the under-trial period. the calculations arc as under :

1. Aft