JACOB CHACKO THEKETALA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is the fourth accused in C.C. No. 1 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai and he stands convicted for the offences under Sections 255, 258 and 420 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 255 I.P.C.; sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 258 I.P.C.; and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and the sentence of imprisonment are ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant herein has preferred this Criminal Appeal.

(2.) The appellant pleaded guilty before the trial Court and on the basis of his plea of guilt, the trial Court convicted and sentenced him as stated above.

(3.) Mr. T. Arulraj, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the two other co-accused viz., A.1 by name Abdul Karim Telgi @ Lala @ Karim Lala @ Big Boss and A.3 by name C.S. Balaji, who also pleaded guilty and were convicted by the trial Court preferred appeals before this Court and in the appeals preferred by them they were acquitted from the charge under Section 255 I.P.C. for the reason that the prosecution case do not constitute an offence under Section 255 I.P.C. The similar benefits must be extended to this appellant also. The learned Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the appellant is confined in jail from 22.03.2003 and though he was arrested in connection with another case, a final report was filed in this case on 21.12.2005 and this appellant was shown as one of the accused and P.T. Warrant also was issued and the appellant was produced before the trial Court periodically. As such, the appellant should have been treated as under-trial prisoner in this case also and the trial Court should have given the benefit of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. setting off the period of imprisonment prior to the date of judgment in this case. It is also submitted that in spite of the fact of detention of the appellant in Pune jail, being brought to the notice of the learned Special Judge, the benefit under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. has not been given to him and an injustice is caused to the appellant.