ANNE VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions raised in these two writ petitions are of some importance to the detenus 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 undertrial 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. 106/70 and 6/71 under more than the 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. Crl. A No. 301/ 72 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 18-12-69. Some of the accused were arrested on 19-12-69 and were produced before the Magistrate who remanded them to judicial custody. Though the petitioner in the first writ petition had 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 18-4-70. Therefore his contention is that it was for no fault of his he was not produced before the Magistrate before 18-4-70, though the first information report had been registered on 18-12-69, and some of the arrested accused were produced on 19-12-69. 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 19-12-69 to 18-4-70 as the remand period and to act accordingly.

(3.) The facts in the second writ petition are slightly different The petitioner was granted bail in Crl. A, No. 301/72 before this Court and was released in accordance with the order on 29-4-72. He was, however, taken under detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act on 26-6-1975. This Court dismissed his criminal appeal on 28-11-1975 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 30-12-1975, on which date he was served with a revocation order. Had he been free he would have surrendered to the police even on 28-11-75 when the High Court delivered its judgment confirming his sentence. Without revoking the order of detention till 30-12-75 the respondents prevented him from undergoiug the punishment which the Courts imposed on him. He, therefore, seeks a direction to the respondents to treat the period from 26-6-75 upto 28-11-75 as remand period and the period from 28-11-75 to 30-12-75 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 of the remand period. The contention in this behalf is that Sec. 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code prosides 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 of sentence of imprisonment on conviction. Since the remand period is equated by Sec. 418 Crl. P. C. with the period of sentence of imprisonment, lemission should be illowed even for that perod.