S. Palanivelu, J.

1. The petitioner is wife of detenu by name Puli @ Prabhu. He was involved in as many as 5 criminal cases in Cr.No.534/05, 616/05, 664/05, 663/05 and 311/05. First and second cases were registered under Section 454, 380 and 461 I.P.C while third and fourth cases were under sections 454 and 380 I.P.C. Last case, Sl.No.5 was registered under Section 454 r/w 511 I.P.C. First two cases were taken up in CC Nos.28 of 2006, 29 of 2006, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Gobichettipalayam, third and fourth cases were taken on file in CC Nos.743 of 2005, 742 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Trichengode and the last case was taken up in C.C.No.56 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Mettur.

2. In the first four cases the detenu was convicted by the respective Courts. In the first and second case, his terms of imprisonment were two years rigorous imprisonment apiece and in third and fourth cases, rigorous imprisonment for one year each. In all these cases, he had been continuously in jail right from 30.11.2005.

3. The facts that are essential for discussion and disposal of the petition are as follows:

The case in CC.No.56 of 2006 was disposed of by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Mettur on 12.06.2007 handing down a sentence of simple imprisonment for two years. While awarding the sentence, the Presiding Officer specifically mentioned in the Judgment that out of simple imprisonment for two years, the period from 24.04.2006 till 12.06.2007 i.e., the date of sentence, shall be set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. It is the contention of the petitioner that though the detenu had already served the sentence as imposed by the Court, still he has not been released from the prison and he has to be set at liberty.

4. Mr. M. Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend in vehemence that inasmuch as the detenu had been continuously serving the sentence imposed by various courts and also the one imposed by the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Mettur, in the fifth case, he should have been discharged from the prison on 24.04.2008, but his detention has been retained by the prison authorities, which is inadmissible in law.

5. Repelling the above contentions, Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that as per the calculation of the Prison authorities, taking into account of the periods of sentences the detenu will have to be released from the prison on 07.02.2009 and his request for earlier release from the jail cannot be entertained. He filed the reply affidavit of first respondent in which it has been calculated that from 24.04.2006 upto 01.02.2007 a period of 284 days has to be set off from the period of sentence. It is not known where from the first respondent has obtained the date 01.02.2007. The date of sentence is 12.06.2007 but as per the first respondent, beginning of sentence is 112. 2007, adding two years with the period. As per the first respondent the date of release of the detenu is 112. 2009. After set off as per the Judgment, the date of release will be 07.03.2009, provided the ineligible set off period is between 02.02.2007 and 11.06.2007. The Court is at loss to find out how the date of beginning of sentence could be fixed as 112. 2007 and date of release as 07.03.2009. The reply affidavit is silent in this regard.

6. In the reply affidavit it is further stated as follows:

"S.No.1 & 2 are to run concurrently, the date of release 112. 2007

S.No.3 & 4 are to run concurrently, the date of release 110. 2007

S.No.5, the date of release 07.03.2009"

It is also mentioned therein that since the above three group of warrants are consecutive sentences one after another, the actual date of release is 07.03.2009. the set off period is restricted to the date of conviction in the first case. Hence the detenu is not able to get double benefit of spending one particular period as a convict and as an under trial prisoner. It is the es