LAWS(BOM)-1977-9-30

RAFIQ ABDUL REHMAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On September 20, 1977
Rafiq Abdul Rehman Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by a convict through jail. It raises a point of some interest relating to the real meaning and interpretation of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) THE petitioner has been convicted in three different cases. One was Sessions Case No. 347 of 1962 which resulted in his conviction under Section 302 as well as under Section 324, Indian Penal Code. The judgment was delivered in that case on February 18, 1963. He was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under two different counts under Section 324, Indian Penal Code. The two sentences of one year each were not only to run concurrently with each other but they were both to run concurrently with life imprisonment. In relation to this Sessions case he was arrested on or about September 1962 and was in continuous detention for the purpose of investigation, inquiry and trial of. Sessions Case No. 347 of 1962. This was till February 18, 1963 when the sentence was pronounced upon him.

(3.) WHILE the petitioner was serving life imprisonment for his conviction in Sessions Case No. 347 of 1962, his sentence has been commuted by the State Government under Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to a term of fourteen years under Clause (b) thereof. The petitioner, therefore, applies by this application to grant him concession of 158 days, which was the period of detention in relation to Sessions Case No. 347 of 1962 from the sentence of fourteen years rigorous imprisonment which is the commuted sentence due to the State Government's orders under Section 433 of the Code. He has also urged that he is entitled to a set off in relation to that period even in the cases of convictions under the Prohibition Act by the 14th and the 18th Courts of the Presidency Magistrates, Bombay. The application is opposed by the public prosecutor.