How is the period of detention under Sec. 428 of the Cr. P. C. to be ascertained? Is the petitioner entitled to set off under Sec. 428 of the Cr. P. C. for the period from 17-12-2004 to 21-6-2005, during which period he was admittedly in custody ? Can the said period be reckoned as "period of detention" undergone by him during investigation, enquiry or trial of the same case i.e. C. C. No. 111 of 2005 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichur, notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific order of remand by the learned C. J. M. authorising detention for the said period? These are the crucial questions surviving for consideration in this Crl. M. C. now.

2. Though various other reliefs were also claimed by the petitioner in this Crl. M. C., now the learned counsel for the petitioner presses only for set off for the said period in one case, i.e. C. C. No. 111 of 2005.

3. A brief reference to skeletal facts appears to be necessary. On the night of 11/12-9-2004 a theft took place in the house of an advocate. A gold bangle was allegedly thieved. Crime No. 733 of 2004 of Town East Police Station, Trichur was registered. Investigation was conducted in that case. A refer report was filed by the Investigating Officer to report that the offender could not be traced.

4. Later, on 17-12-2004 the Irinjalakuda police arrested the petitioner along with another under suspicious circumstances. Crime No. 743 of 2004 was promptly registered before the Irinjalakuda police. The accused in custody was interrogated. Interrogation of the accused allegedly furnished information to the police about the crime committed in Crime No. 733 of 2004 of Town East Police Station. On the basis of the confession statement of the petitioner herein under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the gold ingot (obtained on melting the thieved gold ornament) was recovered from the jeweller on 17-12-2004. Seizure mahazar, which is marked in the trial clearly shows that the recovery was effected in Crime No. 733 of 2004 of Town East police station.

5. To cut a long story short and avoiding irrelevant details, an application was filed to reopen the investigation in Crime No. 733 of 2004. The same was allowed. Investigation continued and final report was filed in Crime No. 733 of 2004 of Town East Police station before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and issued production warrant to produce the accused. He was accordingly produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 21-6-2005. The trial dragged on. The judgment in the case was pronounced on 11-10-2006. The accused was found guilty, convicted and sentenced. The verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence have now become final.

6. According to the petitioner, from 17-12-2004, on which date he was arrested and on which date the stolen property in Crime No. 733 of 2004 was recovered on the basis of the confession statement of the petitioner, to 21-6-2005 the petitioner was actually detained in connection with the investigation in crime No. 733 of 2004 notwithstanding the fact that he was detained in connection with the investigation in some other crimes also. It is the contention of the petitioner that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Najakat (AIR 2001 SC 2255) : (2001 Cri LJ 2588), the petitioner is entitled for set off for the period 17-12-2004 to 11-10-2006. But unfortunately the petitioner has been given set off only for the period from 21-6-2005 to 11-10-2006. Thus, to put it in a nut shell, the period of set off claimed now in this Crl. M. C. is from 17-12-2004 to 21-6-2005.

7. Reports of the Magistrate and the prison authorities were called for. There is not a semblance of doubt or dispute that the petitioner has remained in custody from 17-12-04 to 21-6-2005. There is also no doubt or dispute that during this period investigation into Crime No. 733 of 2004 was actually going on also. But the petitioner has not