ANNE VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions raised in these two writ petitions are of some importance to the detent s under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act who are also convicted prisoners undergoing imprisonment. The first question is whether the period of detention can be set off against the sentence of imprisonment. The other point is whether accused persons, who are undergoing terms of imprisonment, are entitled to remissions even for the period when they were in jail as under-trial prisoners before conviction.

(2.) The questions above-mentioned arise thus: The two petitioners were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in S.C. Nos. 106 of 1970 and 6 of 1971 under more than one count and were sentenced to undergo varying periods of imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and since the maximum sentence is four years, they have to undergo imprisonment for four years. Criminal A. No. 301 of 1972 preferred by them to this Court against their convictions and sentences was dismissed. The 1st petitioner had been detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act even earlier. He alleged that the first information report in the conspiracy case was filed on 18th December, 1969. Some of the accused were arrested on 19th Decemter, 1969 and were produced before the Magistrate who remanded them to judicial custody. Though the petitioner in the first writ petition has been under detention and thus available at the disposal of the police, he was produced before the Magistrate in connection with the case only on 18th April, 1970. Therefore, his contention is that it was for no fault of his he was not produced before the Magistrate before 18th April, 1970 though the first information report had been registered on 18th December, 1969 and some of the arrested accused were produced on 19th December, 1969. He, therefore, seeks a direction to the respondents, who are the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Superintendent, Central Prison, Hyderabad, to treat the period from 19th December, 1969 to 18th April, 1970 as the remand period and to act accordingly.

(3.) The facts in the second writ petition are stightly different. The petitioner was granted bail in Criminal A. No. 301 of 197? before this Court and was released in accordance with the order on 29th April, 1972. He was, however, taken under detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act on 26th June, 1975. This Court dismissed his criminal appeal on 28th November, 1975 confirming the trial Court's conviction and sentence against him. Despite this confirmation of the sentence by the appellate Court, he was continued in detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act till 30th December, 1975 on which date he was served with a revocation order. Had he been free he would have surrendered to the police even on 28th November, 1975 when the High Court delivered its judgment confirming his sentence. Without revoking the order oi detent-'on till 30th December, 1975 the respondents prevented; him from undergoing the punishment which the Courts imposed on him. He, therefore, seeks a direction to the respondents to treat the period from ?6th June, 1975 to 28th November, 1975 as remand period and the period from 29th November, 1975 to 30th December, 1975 as the period during which he suffered imprisonment as per the conviction. It is in that writ petition that remissions are claimed even in respect oi the remand period. The contention in this behalf is that section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for set off of the remand period against the sentence of imprisonment. The jail rules provide for remission for good conduct etc., in the period ofsentence of imprisonment or conviction. Since the remand period is equated by section 428, Criminal Procedure Code, with the period of sentence of imprisonment, remission should be allowed even for that period.