AVADH BEHARI ROHATGI, J.

( 1 ) THESE are three petition for habeas corpus. The point raised in all of them is the same. It is a point of principle. It relates to set off of the period of detention undergone by the accused under s. 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

( 2 ) THE three accused in the three writ petitions were convicted of crimes in more cases than one. They were awarded separate sentences at different times. Each of the accused was arrested in one case to begin with and thereafter he was also placed under arrest at different times in other cases. This means that formally he was put under arrest in other cases, though he was already in detention.

( 3 ) TAKE a simple illustration. An accused is arrested in one case on 1-1-1977. He is arrested in another case on 1-1-1978, while the trial of the first case is proceeding. In the first case he is convicted and sentenced on 31-1-1978 to two years imprisonment. Under s. 428 the accused will be entitled to set off his period of detention from 1-1-1977 to 31-1-1978 against the term of imprisonment imposed on him in the first case. This legal position is incontestable.

( 4 ) TO take the illustration further, suppose in the second case the accused is convicted on 31-3-78 and sentenced to three years imprisonment. Now the accused claims that he is entitled to set off the pre-trial detention in the second case as well. In other words he claims that the period of detention from 1-1-1977 to 31-3-1978 be set off against the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him in the second case. The short question is : Is he entitled to set off the period of detention against his sentence in the second case though he had had the benefit of s. 428 once in the first case ?

( 5 ) THE Delhi Administration opposes these petitions. Counsel for the Administration submitted that the accused person is entitled to set off in the second case only upto the date of conviction in the first case as the period of detention undergone by the accused in prison after conviction was being undergone under the sentence imposed in the first case and not during the investigation, inquiry or trial of the second case.

( 6 ) S. 428 of the Code lays down the rule of "set off". It reads :

"where an accused person has, on conviction, been sentenced to imprisonment for a term, the period of detention, if any, undergone by him during the investigation, inquiry or trial of the same case and before the date of such conviction, shall be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him on such conviction, and the liability of such person to undergo imprisonment on such conviction shall be restricted to the remainder, if any, of the term of imprisonment imposed on him. "

( 7 ) ON a truand interpretation of the section it appears to us that in the second case also in which the accused person was convicted on 31st March, 1978 he will be entitled to set off the period of pre-trial detention i. e. 1st January, 1977 to 31st March, 1978 against the sentence of three years imposed on him. The Statute does not make any distinction between the first case and the second case. The principle is the same. It has to be applied to all cases even-handedly and uniformly.

( 8 ) THE key words of the section are "the period of detention, if any, undergone by him during the investigation, inquiry or trial of the same case and before the date of such conviction". This "period of detention" shall be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him on conviction. The liability of such person to undergo imprisonment shall be restricted to the remainder of the term of imprisonment imposed on him.

( 9 ) THE words "of the same case" are important. The section speaks of the "period of detention" undergone by the accused person, but it expressely says that the detention mentioned refers to the detention during the investigation, inquiry or trial of the case in which the accused person has been convicted. The section makes it clear that the per

Click Here to Read the rest of this document