SOHORAB MOLLA Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application has been filed by the Petitioners praying for direction of set off the period spent by them in custody as under trial prisoner from the period of sentence imposed on them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Alipore in ST. No. 4 (1) 1983 by judgment and order of conviction dated 3.8.83 and also praying for transfer of records of G. R. case No. 1277 of 1982 from Barasat to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th court at Alipore.

(2.) Mr. Talukdar, learned advocate for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners were convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Alipore in Sessions Case No. 14 (12) 1982 which was renumbered as Sessions Trial No. S. T. No. 4 (1) 1983 (G. R. Case No. 1277 of 1982). They preferred appeal against conviction and sentence but the appeal was dismissed by this Court and finally the conviction and sentence was upheld by the Hon'ble supreme Court. Though the Petitioners were convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life they are now being produced as under trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Barasat. Sec. 418 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Code) deals with execution of sentence of imprisonment. It is the duty of the Court while passing order of sentence to forward an warrant to the jail in order to enable the convict accused to undergo his period of sentence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Alipore failed to carry out his duty in terms of Sec. 418 of the Code. It appears that there was lack of communication between the Court convicting the accused Petitioners and the detaining authorities as evidenced by the fact that till date the Petitioners are being produced as under trials.

(3.) Mr. Talukdar further submitted that it is trite position of law that the sentence of imprisonment must commence from the time it is passed. It terms of Ss. 418, 419 and 420 of the Code Pursuant to a sentence of imprisonment, the mode of execution of the said sentence of imprisonment is clearly specified and an onus is cast upon the Court to ensure that the sentence is correctly executed in terms of the provisions of the Code. Sec. 28 of the Code prescribes that where an accused has on conviction been sentenced to imprisonment for a term, not being imprisonment in default of fine, the period of detention, if any, undergone by him during investigation, inquiry or trial of the said case and before date of conviction shall be set off against terms of imprisonment imposed on him and he shall undergo imprisonment subject to the reminder of the term of imprisonment, if any.