SANTOSH BHAU HOMANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the parties.

(2.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent as short question is involved. Mr. Shinde, a. P. P. waives notice for the State.

(3.) This application is filed through jail. The relief claimed in this application is essentially to provide for set off to the applicant which request was declined by the Sessions Court, Thane by its order dated 22. 4. 2002 in Sessions Case no. 252 of 1997. The applicant is not seeking any other relief except to contend that the applicant was entitled for relief of set off in terms of section 428 of Cr. P. C. The Sessions Court has rejected that contention on the reasoning that the applicant has been awarded life sentence and set off cannot be provided in such cases. This is the limited controversy in the present application. Counsel for the applicant, the learned Amicus curiae appointed by the Court, has placed reliance on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the apex Court in the case of Bhagirath Vs. Delhi administration, reported in (1985) 2 S. C. C. 580, which took the view that the provisions of Section 428 of Cr. P. C. will apply even to cases wherein the accused have been ordered to undergo life imprisonment. Mr. Shinde, the learned A. P. P. on the other hand, has relied on the recent decision of two Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Munna Vs. Union of India, reported in 2005 AIR SCW 4524, to contend that imprisonment for life means rigorous imprisonment for life and for which reason, the question of providing set off by invoking Section 428 of Cr. P. C. , does not arise.