CHINNASAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A convicted prisoner has filed this writ petition through the good offices of the Madras District Committee for Legal Aid and Advice. The petition raises an interesting question of law, viz., whether a person who has been convicted in a plurality of cases on the same day and sentenced to undergo sentences of imprisonment concurrently, can claim the benefit of remission of the period of pre-trial detention under S. 428, Cr.P.C. in respect of all the cases.

(2.) THE brief facts which require mention are as follows : THE petitioner was arrested on 19-4-1982 by the third respondent for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380, I.P.C. Charge-sheets were filed against the petitioner in three cases under Sections 457 and 380, I.P.C. THEy were taken on file as C.C. Nos. 506, 507 and 508 of 1982 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate No. II. Vellore. THE petitioner was in remand from 19-4-1982. On 29-9-1982 the plea of guilt entered by the petitioner in all the three cases was accepted and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months in each case. THE sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently. THE learned Magistrate had granted the relief of set-off under Section 428. Cr.P.C. only in respect of the sentence awarded in C.C. No. 506 of 1982, but did not grant any set-off in respect of the sentences awarded in the other two cases.

(3.) NOTICE was ordered to the Public Prosecutor returnable by 17-1-1983. On 24-12-1982 the Public Prosecutor put forth his contentions in the petition. His stand was that inasmuch as the trial Magistrate has granted set-off only in C.C. No. 506 of 1982 and has specifically stated that no set-off was ordered in the other two cases, it followed that the petitioner can claim the benefit of set-off only in respect of the first case and not the second and third cases. Another contention put forward was that the petitioner has twenty-five previous convictions to his credit and in such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any leniency in the matter of set-off so far as the sentence in the second and third cases are concerned.