PREM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed of the issue of a writ of habeas corpus to release the petitioners declaring that their further detention is illegal. In support of the said petition an affidavit is filed by one Naresh Kumar Jain, who is the brother-in-law of the 2nd petitioner Ramesh Chand.

(2.) The facts are that the petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Sessions Cases Nos. 51 of 1980 and 14 of 1981 on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. In both the cases the learned Sessions Judge convicted the petitioners and sentenced each one of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs. 100.00 in default to undergo sentence of one month. The learned Sessions Judge also observed that the accused are entitled to setoff the remand period. The judgment was delivered on 27-7-1981. The petitioners are now in jail and they are not undergoing the sentence. Both crimes were committed in the year 1975 and they were registered under S. 392 I.P.C. on 10-6-1975 and investigation was taken up. On the information that he petitioners were arrested on 20-6-1975 by the Inspector of Police, Chikodi, Belgaum District of Karnataka State and some properties were recovered, the Investigating Officers of this State proceeded to that place. One of the victims in Crime No. 85 of 1975 identified the property on 4-7-1975. There was an identification parade held on 5-7-1975 at Haveri in Dharwar District, Karnataka State. The victims in both the crimes identified the petitioners as the culprits. During the course of investigation even the S.I. of Police, Pondur questioned the accused on 26-6-1975 and A-2 is alleged to have made a statement which led to the arrest of A-5 at Delhi. It is stated that they were arrested on 20-6-1975 and by now they have undergone a sentence of more than seven years, but the jail authorities are not releasing them. The petitioners are entitled to setoff. Whether the petitioners are convicted in one case or in many cases, whether simultaneously or at different times, whether it is in one State or in different States such as Karnataka (and A.P.), the total period spent by them in jail should be counted towards their sentences awarded by the Court at Srikakulam. Therefore their detention is illegal and they should be released.

(3.) On behalf of the State, a counter-affidavit is filed. In the counter-affidavit the facts stated are admitted except to state that the petitioners were convicted by the Courts in the State of Karnataka and were undergoing various terms of sentences as detailed hereunder : 1. S.C. No. 107/75 of R.I. 4 years, 2nd Addl. Sessions dated 12-3-1976. Judge, Belgaum : 2. C.C. No. 730/76 of R.I. for 8 months Judl. 1st Class on 25-3-1977. Magistrate, Belgaum 3. S.C. No. 42/75 of R.I. for 7 years on Principal Sessions 30-9-1977. Judge, Belgaum. This sentence shall run concurrently with S.C. No. 107/75 of 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Belgaum. According to the counter-affidavit, the following periods are to be setoff as remand period as per the committal warrants. 1. S.C. No. 14/81 From 21-1-1980 to 20-7-1981. 2. S.C. No. 51/80 From 12-8-1980 to 20-7-1981. After the disposal of the cases, the prisoners were transferred back to Central Prison, Belgaum, Karnataka State, to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence awarded by the Courts of the said State. After expiry of the sentences at the Central Prison. Belgaum, again they have been transferred to Central Prison, Visakapatnam on the following dated to undergo the sentences awarded by the Court in Srikakulam. 1. Prem Prakash ... 4-11-1981 2. Ramesh Chand ... 16-6-1982 3. Joginder Singh ... 4-11-1981. Thus the above three petitioners have to complete a total sentence of seven years two months each in this State with effect from the date of expiry of sentence in Karnataka State, as the sentences awarded by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam were not ordered to run concurrently with the previous sentence awarded by the Courts in Karnataka State. Hence the sentences are deemed to be consecutive sentences under S. 427(1) Cr.P.C. The Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam has taken all the periods of setoff into consideration at the time of imposing the sentences. It is submitted that the petitioners were arrested on 20-6-1975 and by this time they completed seven years is not correct as the sentences were not directed to run concurrently. Therefore, the petition is devoid of merits.