( 1. ) AS common question of law and facts arise in this group of petitions, they are disposed of by this common judgment and order.

( 2. ) IN all these petitions respective petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order directing the jail authorities to grant benefit of set off of the days undergone by the respective petitioners as undertrial prisoner in other special Pota Cases for a period he has remained in judicial custody in other Pota Cases.

( 3. ) AT the outset, Shri Ansari, learned advocate for the respective petitioners has stated at the bar that respective petitioners are not challenging the communication dated 5.11.1988 and they are challenging the decision of the jail authorities in denying the benefit of set off against the period of detention / imprisonment undergone by them in connection with other Cases only.

( 4. ) IN all these petitions respective petitioners came to be arrested in three different Pota Cases and in all the three Pota Cases they came to be convicted. In one of the Pota Case, the respective petitioners are sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. It is the case of the respective petitioners that the respective petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of set off in other two Pota Cases, in relation to the period of detention already undergone in respect of the 3rd Pota Cases. That by respective communication, respective petitioners are communicated that the respective petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of set off only in respect of his detention in first case from the date of his arrest till his conviction, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghbir Singh vs. State of Hariyana reported in AIR 1984 SC 1796. Hence, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the action of the jail authorities in denying the benefit of set off in relation to their period of detention already undergone in respect of other cases, the respective petitioners have preferred present Special Criminal Applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 5. ) SHRI I.H. Saiyed, learned advocate has appeared for Shri Ansari, learned advocate for the respective petitioners. Shri I.H. Saiyed, learned advocate for the respective petitioners has submitted that the impugned decision of the jail authorities in not granting the benefit of set off in relation to the period of detention already undergone in respect to one Pota case, so far as other Pota Cases are concerned, is absolutely illegal and contrary to the provision of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.,

5.1. Shri I.H. Saiyed, learned advocate for the respective petitioners has submitted that as such the jail authorities have relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghbir Singh (supra) which is no longer a good law in view of the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali reported in (2001) 6 SCC 311.

5.2. Shri I.H. Saiyed, learned advocate for the respective petitioners has submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghbir Singh (supra) came to be considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali (supra) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision did not agree with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghbir Singh (supra). It is submitted that as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Najakat Ali Mubarak Alia (supra) if the convict is in prison for whatever reasons during the stage of investigation, enquiry or trial of a particular case and was later convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, in that case, earlier period of detention undergone by him should be counted as part of the sentence imposed on him and it may happen that the accused is convicted in one case under different count of affairs and sentence to different