IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.
Thangaraj @ Thamizharasan – Appellant
Versus
State by: The Superintendent of Prison, Chennai – Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 27173 of 2022
Decided On : 03-03-2023
Criminal Original Petition - Direction to implement judgment, concurrent sentences, and set off detention period - Section 427 Cr.P.C., Section 428 Cr.P.C., Explosive Substances Act 1908, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 - The court discussed the entitlement of set off for concurrent sentences and the period of detention undergone by the convict during investigation, enquiry, or trial of the same case. The court applied the legal provisions of Section 427 and Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. and considered the judgments in Atul Manubhai Parekh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, State of Punjab Vs. Madam Lal, and State of Maharashtra vs. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali to determine the entitlement of set off for the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a direction to implement the judgment in SPL.S.C.No.5 of 2014 and run concurrent the petitioner's sentence in SPL.S.C.No.5 of 2014 with the petitioner's sentence in S.C.No.7 of 2017 and set off the petitioner's detention period. The petitioner had undergone imprisonment from 11.03.2014 to 13.09.2017 and from 30.01.2020 to till date.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to set off for the period from 04.02.2022 in S.C.No. 7 of 2017 and for the period of his production on PT warrant from 04.09.2014 to 13.09.2017 in S.C.No.7 of 2017.
Issues: The issues involved the entitlement of set off for concurrent sentences and the period of detention undergone by the convict during investigation, enquiry, or trial of the same case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal provisions of Section 427 and Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. and considered the judgments in Atul Manubhai Parekh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, State of Punjab Vs. Madam Lal, and State of Maharashtra vs. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali to determine the entitlement of set off for the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the Criminal Original Petition, granting the petitioner's entitlement to set off for concurrent sentences and the period of his production on PT warrant from 04.09.2014 to 13.09.2017 in S.C.No.7 of 2017.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to issue a direction to the respondent to implement the judgment in SPL.S.C.No.5 of 2014 (on the file of the Special Court, NIA cases at Puducherry) dated 04.02.2022 and run concurrent the petitioner''s sentence in SPL.S.C.No.5 of 2014 (on the file of the Special Court, NIA cases at Puducherry) with the petitioner''s sentence in S.C.No.7 of 2017 (on the file of the Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Poonamallee, Chennai) and set off the petitioner''s detention period viz from 11.03.2014 to 13.09.2017 and from 30.01.2020 to till date.)
1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to issue a direction to the respondent to implement the judgment in SPL.S.C.No.5 of 2014, on the file of the Special Court, NIA cases at Puducherry, dated 04.02.2022 and run concurrent the petitioner''s sentence in SPL.S.C.No.5 of 2014 with the petitioner''s sentence in S.C.No.7 of 2017, on the file of the Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Poonamallee, Chennai and set off the petitioner''s detention period, viz., from 11.03.2014 to 13.09.2017 and from 30.01.2020 to till date.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was arrested on 11.03.2014, in crime No.47 of 2014, on the file of the Othakkadai police station and remanded to judicial custody. When he was in prison, he was remanded in crime No.10 of 2014, on the file of the Nachiyarpuram police station, Sivagangai District, before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirupathur on 25.03.2014. Thereafter, on 09.04.2014, he was produced before the Special Court, NIA cases Puducherry and remanded to judicial custody in SPL.S.C.No.5 of 2014. The abovesaid three cases were the result of one series of acts connected together as to form the same transaction committed by six accused. Crime No.10 of 2014 was transferred to the Session Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Poonamallee, Chennai and taken on file in S.C.No.7 of 2017. On 30.1.2020, the Trial Court convicted petitioner and five accused for the offences under Sections 120B r/w 124A IPC, Section 15 r/w 16 (b) and Sections 18 & 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment under these sections. During trial in SPL.S.C.No.5 of 2014, petitioner and five others were convicted for the offences under sections 120B r/w Sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act 1908, Section 4 (a) of Explosive Substances Act 1908, Section 16 (1) (b) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 and Section 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 18, 20 and 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment for each offences. The learned Trial Judge ordered in SPL.S.C.No.5 of 2014 that all the sentences shall run concurrently as per section 427 Cr.P.C. along with the sentence passed in S.C.No.7 of 2017, on the file of the Session Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Poonamallee since the conspiracy in all the three cases are from the same place. The period of detention already undergone by the accused are ordered to be set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. since all the three incidents are connected to each other. It is stated that petitioner is in prison from 11.03.2014 to 13.09.2017 and from 30.01.2020 to till date. He completed more than 5 ½ years of imprisonment. His further detention is illegal. Therefore this petition.
3. In support of his submission, he produced the relevant portions of the copies of the judgment in S.C.No.7 of 2017 and SPL.S.C.No.5 of 2014. He also produced the copies of the orders in Crl.O.P.Nos.3884 of 2022, 5653 of 2022 and 20554 of 2022 to show that the co-accused had been given the benefit of set off and were released.
4. In response, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) opposed this petition on the ground that in the order passed in Crl.O.P.Nos.3884 of 2022
AI
The entitlement of set off for concurrent sentences and the period of detention undergone by the convict during investigation, enquiry, or trial of the same case.
A convicted prisoner cannot claim set-off for remand periods in subsequent cases while serving a sentence.
High Court under Article 226 can direct mandatory set-off of undertrial detention under Section 428 Cr.P.C. for life convicts, even if omitted by trial court, as it is non-discretionary statutory rig....
Defiance of Parole order – When a sentence of imprisonment for a term is passed under the Code on an escaped convict, Section 426(2)(a) Cr.P.C., is applicable and Court has to take note of explicit p....
The court clarified that unless explicitly ordered, sentences from multiple convictions run consecutively under Section 427 of Cr.P.C., accommodating set-off for time served, emphasizing the legislat....
Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only allows set-off for detention periods directly related to the same case, and not for periods related to other cases.
Petitioner is not entitled for the relief as contended in the petition to make the sentence as concurrent instead of consecutive and there is an explicit proviso under Section 426 of Cr.P.C., with re....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.