IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the pre-conviction period of detention, even if in the nature of 'simple imprisonment', is liable to be set-off against a sentence of 'rigorous imprisonment' under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

ORDER (CAV)

1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek set-off of the period of detention undergone by them prior to their conviction and sentencing, under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioners were arrested on 22.03.2012 in connection with FIR No.32(03)2012 BPR PS. After a full-fledged trial, they were convicted of offences under Sections 367, 376(2)(g) and 392 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life, along with payment of fine, by the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur East, in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2012, vide Judgment dated 12.06.2013 and Order of Sentence dated 25.06.2013. In appeal, however, this Court reduced the sentence imposed upon the petitioners to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. The petitioners are presently lodged in Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa. They assert that they completed the requisite incarceration on 22.03.2022, after reduction of the set-off period claimed by them. It is stated that the fine amount imposed upon the petitioners has already been paid.

3. Heard Mr. N.Surendrajit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners; and Mr. Athouba Khaidem, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for State authorities.

4. At the outset, it may be noted that there is no mention in the judgments of the Trial Court and this Court that the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. is either extended or denied to the petitioners. The question that would then arise is whether such an observation is necessary at all in the light of the statutory scheme. In that context, the issue would also arise as to whether the period of detention undergone by a person during the investigation, inquiry or trial of the same case, which would be in the nature of 'simple imprisonment', can be set-off against the 'rigorous imprisonment' that he or she is sentenced to after conviction.

5. Section 428 Cr.P.C. reads thus: -

428. Period of detention undergone by the accused to be set off against the sentence or imprisonment.-- Where an accused person has, on conviction, been sentenced to imprisonment for a term 1 [not being imprisonment in default of payment of fine], the period of detention, if any, undergone by him during the investigation, inquiry or trial of the same case and before the date of such conviction, shall be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him on such conviction, and the liability of such person to undergo imprisonment on such conviction shall be restricted to the remainder, if any, of the term of imprisonment imposed on him. 2[Provided that in case referred to in Section 433A, such period of detention shall be set off against the period of fourteen years referred to in that section.]

1. Ins. By Act 45 of 1978, sec.31 (w.e.f. 18-12-1978)

2. Added by Act 25 of 2005, sec 34 (w.e.f.23-6-2006)

6. In the light of the proviso which was inserted in the statute book on 23.06.2006 by Act No. 25 of 2005, it would be necessary to take note of the provisions of Section 433A Cr.P.C. This provision deals with restriction on the power of remission or commutation in certain cases. It reads to the effect that where a sentence of life imprisonment is imposed upon conviction for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law, or where a death sentence has been commuted into one of life imprisonment, such person shall not be released from prison unless he has served at least 14 years of imprisonment. The statutory scheme is therefore to the effect that even in cases of life imprisonment, which would extend to at least 14 years of imprisonment, the benefit of set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. is available. Trite to state, life imprisonment is invariably 'rigorous imprisonment', i.e., with hard labour. Therefore, there can be no gainsaying that even a convict sentenced to undergo a term of 'rigorous imprisonment' would be entitled to seek set-off of the pre-conviction detention suffered by him in relation to the same case, which would be in the nature of 'simple imprisonment'.

7. It woul