RAMGOPAL RAGHUVAR PRASAD Vs. SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL JAIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this habeas corpus petition against what he alleges to be his son's continuance in illegal custody in the Central Prison, Jabalpur.

(2.) TWO cases were registered against the petitioner's son as Crime No. 146/90 and Crime No. 221/91, both of Khurai Police Station. The first case related to offence punishable under Sections 394 and 397 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and Section 450 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. The second case related to offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code. He could be arrested in both these cases only on 28-6-1991. Since then he has been in judicial custody. In the first case (S. T. No. 311/91), he was convicted on 14-12-1991 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai under Section 394 read with Section 397, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and convicted under Section 450, Indian Penal Code read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. In the second case, on 8-8-1992 he was convicted under Section 326, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R. I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/- with default sentence of R. I. for one year. He filed Criminal Appeal No. 27/92 against the conviction and sentence in the sessions case and on 30-8-1994, the High Court acquitted him of all the charges. The conviction in the second case has been confirmed in appeal and revision.

(3.) PETITIONER contends that though as a matter of fact his son underwent imprisonment in the first case, since the conviction and sentence therein have been reversed by the High Court and he has been acquitted of the charges, in law it cannot be regarded that he underwent imprisonment in that case and, therefore, the sentence imposed on him in the second case on 8-8-1992 must be deemed to have commenced on that day and if he is given set off permitted under Section 428 Criminal Procedure Code, it has to be held that he has undergone imprisonment for over three years. It is stated that he has already deposited the fine imposed in the second case. In these circumstances, petitioner contends that his son's continuance in the prison amounts to illegal detention.