An accused is entitled to set off the period of detention in multiple cases, even if the periods overlap, and the change of status from undertrial prisoner (UTP) to convict in one case does not affect the right to set off in another case.

This is a petition for habeas corpus which involves computation of the period of detention required to be set off under section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short "the Code", when an accused is convicted in more than one case and the periods of detention during the investi­gation, inquiry and trial of one case overlaps the other.

2. The petitioner was arrested on 6.9.80 in connection with G. R. Case No. 456/80. While in such detention as an Under Trial Prisoner he was formally arrested at different times in other cases, including G. R. Case No. 496 of 1980. In the last case, he was formally put under arrest on 22.9.80, though he was already in detention in connection with G. R. Case No. 456/80. On 12.1.1981 he was convicted in G. R. Case No. 496 of 1980 under section 380 I. P. C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 months and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 20 days and further sentenced to R. I. for 2 months said to be under section 75 I. P. C. At the time of awarding the sentences the learned Magistrate allowed "set off" from 22.9.80, (the date on which he was formally arrested in the said case) till 12.1.81 (the date of his conviction). There­after, on 18.2.81 the accused was convicted in G. R. Case No. 456/80 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 2 years. But the learned Magistrate did not allow any "set off" to the accused.

3. The petitioner contends that in G. R. Case No. 456 of 1980 he was entitled to set off on and from the date of his arrest, that is, 6.9.80 to 18.2.81 as enjoined by Section 482 of "the Code". Mr. M. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for Mizoram submits that he is entitled to set off from 6.9.80 to 21.9.80 and that far and no further. According to him the petitioner had been granted set off for the period commencing from 22.9.80 to 12.1.81 in G. R. Case No. 496 of 1980 and, as such, he was not entitled to set off in respect of the same period for the second time in G. R. Case No. 456 of 1980. Counsel further submits that the petitioner upon his conviction in G. R. Case No. 496/80 ceased to be an Under Trial prisoner, as he was a convict in G. R. Case No. 496/80," so he was disentitled to set off from 13.1.1981 to 18.2.1982 as Section 428 is applicable only to a UTP and not to a convict.

4. Why Section 428 Cr. P. C. was brought in the Statute book ? What are the object, scope and nature of the Section ?

The Section has been inserted in the "new Code" to mitigate the evils of delayed trial, to prevent overcrowding in jails and to uphold public interest. Sluggish justice is the anti­thesis of decent and fair procedure enshrined in our Constitution. The inability of investigating agencies and the Courts to provide prompt trial has contributed to various evils including backlog of cases; delay in investigation contributes to the overcrowding and deplorable state of local jails, lengthy exposures to these conditions in jail have destructive effects on human character, the time spent in jail is dead-time apart from the detrimental impact it has on the prisoners-it often means loss of a job, it disrupts family life and it enforces idleness. To help dispense swift but deliberate justice and dispense with slow motion justice and long distance investigation and trial proceedings the wholesome provision has been introduced. The provision is preventive a well as curative in nature and character.

5. In Suraj Bhan vs. Om Prakash AIR 1976 SC 649 the Supreme Court has held that the benefit of Section 428 could be claimed by a person convicted before coming into fore of the new Code provided his sentence was continuing when the new Code was enforced. The conclusion was reached without reference to Section 484 (2)(b) of the new Code. In Matubar Parida vs. State of Orissa AIR 1975 SC 1465 their Lordships reached the same conclusion with the aid of Section 484 (2) (b) of the code. The section confers a statutory right to a convict to claim reduction of his liability to under