TUNTUN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Petitioner Tuntun was the accused in as many as eleven criminal cases. The description of each of which has been given by the petitioner in paragraph 6 of the present petition. Those were mainly case of trespass for the purpose of committing act of theft. The petitioner confessed to his guilt on 27.9.2008 and accordingly he was held guilty after he had pleaded guilty in eight of those cases which appear at serial nos. 1 to 8. in para-6 of the present petition. The C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar, who was passing the order of conviction and sentence on 27.9.2008 directed the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for one year and seven months as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in case of non payment of fine, he had to suffer further imprisonment for one month. In cases mentioned at serial nos. 9 and 10 also the similar sentence was passed by the C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar against the petitioner with same default clause as regards the sentence of fine. In those two cases, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced on a different date, i.e., 15.11.2009. The petitioner was again held guilty and convicted of offences under Sections 457, 380 and 411 I.P.C. in the case which appears at serial no. 11 of paragraph 6 of the petition and the Court directed that the period spent by him in prison shall be the sentence imposed upon him. In addition to that the petitioner was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and if he had not paid the amount of fine he had to undergo five days imprisonment.

(3.) The petitioner submits that the petitioner was sent to jail for serving out his sentence in each of the said cases as per Section 418 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was confined since 8.2.2008. The petitioner has further stated that the period of sentence which was imposed upon the petitioner on 27.9.2008 and 15.11.2008 would come to an end on 7.10.2009 which could have included the imprisonment in lieu of fine also. But, the petitioner was still in custody and was, as such, under illegal confinement. It was contended that the petitioner has served out nine years two months and nine days since the day of his confinement and he was entitled to be released from custody.