AJIT KUMAR RAM SARUP Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have been convicted and sentenced by the General Court Martial under the Army Act, 1950. They have been lodged in civil jails. They seek a set off their pre-trial detention against the sentence of imprisonment. The claim has been made under S. 428 of the Cr.P.C. ("The Code"). The jail and the army authorities have rejected their claim.

(2.) If S. 428 of the Cr.P.C. is applicable to the case of the petitioners, there is no doubt that they are entitled to get the benefit thereof. The section provides that where an accused person has, on a conviction, been sentenced to imprisonment for a term (not being imprisonment in default of payment of fine), the period of detention, if any, undergone by him during the investigation, inquiry or trial and before the date of such conviction, shall be set off against the term of imprisonment and the liability of such person to undergo imprisonment shall be restricted to the remainder, if any, of the term of imprisonment imposed on him. The period of detention referred to in the section is of the accused person during the investigation, enquiry or trial of the offence against him. Section 2(h) defines 'investigation' and S. 2(g) defines "enquiry". Both refer to the proceedings under the Code. In the first place, there is nothing on the record to indicate that the cases against the petitioners were investigated or enquired into under the Code. Secondly, S. 5 of the Code provides:

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner however, submitted that since the petitioners are lodged in the civil prisons, they are entitled to the benefit of S. 428 of the Code just like any other convict in the jail. We are unable to agree with this contention. The petitioners may be entitled to remissions as provided in the jail manuals, but not set off under S. 428 of the Code. They have been lodged in the civil prisons by an order made under S. 169(l) Of the Army Act. Sec. 169(l) provides: