KORA KARUPPAN ALIAS CHINNATHAMBI Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this case is really concluded by the reported decision of the Supreme Court in STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER VS. NAJAKAT ALIA MUBARAK ALI reported in 2001 SCC (Cri)6 1106, wherein it is held by the Supreme Court that the words "of the same case" appearing in Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code are not to be understood as suggesting that the set-off is allowable only if the earlier jail life was undergone by him exclusively for the case in which the sentence is imposed. The Supreme court has observed thus: "The period during which the accused was in prison subsequent to the inception of a particular case, should be credited towards the period of imprisonment awarded as sentence in that particular case. It is immaterial that the prisoner was undergoing sentence of imprisonment in another case also during the said period. The words "of the same case" were used to refer to the pre-sentence period of detention undergone by him. Nothing more can be made out of the collocation of those words. It must therefore, be held that Section 428 of the Code permits the accused to have the period undergone by him in jail as an under trial prisoner set off against the period of sentence imposed on him irrespective of whether he was in jail in connection with the same case during that period.

(2.) The facts are peculiar in this habeas corpus petition. The petitioner was undergoing sentence in various crimes. In that way, the petitioner appears to be a regular jail bird. He points out that he was taken in custody on 18.5.1998 in respect of four crimes, they being Crime Nos. 2422 of 1992, 2420 of 1992, 2421 of 1991 and 2429 of 1992 and all these crimes were committed within the jurisdiction of Dharmapuri Town Police Station. It seems that the petitioner was absconding after these crimes and was apprehended for the first time on 18.5.1998 and has continued to be inside till all the four cases based on these crime numbers are decided.

(3.) It is contended by the petitioner that these four cases in respect of the aforementioned crime numbers were C.C.Nos.146 of 1996, 143 of 1997, 144 of 1997 and 13 of 1998. They were all tried by Judicial Magistrate of I Class No.1, Dharmapuri. The petitioner points out that in the first of these cases, he was sentenced to suffer three years of rigorous imprisonment, while in others, the same Court awarded the same sentence and directed to be made concurring with the sentence awarded under C.C.No.146 of 1996. The argument of the learned counsel is very simple. He says that if that is so, then the C.C.No.146 of 1996 becomes the basic case. If for that, the petitioner was sentenced to suffer three years of rigorous imprisonment, he had already suffered rigorous imprisonment in between the period 18.5.1998 to 8.4.2002 when the judgment was declared. He points out that in all the four matters, the petitioner was in remand during this period of 18.5.1998 to 7.4.2002 and therefore he had completed three years of sentence period in C.C.No.146 of 1996 and since the sentence in other three cases was ordered to run concurrently with the sentence in C.C.No.146 of 1996, that would be completion of the three years period.