ABDUL KALAM Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M.H. Ahmed, learned counsel for the accused appellant as well as Ms. M. Kechee, learned GA., Nagalnd. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.7.2012 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Dimapur, in GR Case No. 185/2005, by which along with others, the accused appellant has been convicted under Section 397 IPC R/W Section 28 Arms Act. Upon such conviction, he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years. The appellant is aggrieved by that part of the judgment, by which, it has been provided that the period of sentence of RI for 10 years would commence from the expiry of the period of sentence of 7 years and 3 years respectively imposed on the accused in connection with another case earlier.

(2.) The accused appellant was arrested on 20.11.2005 in connection with GR 491/2005 (corresponding to Dimapur (E) RS. Case No. 158/05). Consequent upon trial, he was convicted on 9.7.2010 with the sentence of 10 years imprisonment. In the said case, the charges proved against the accused appellant were under Section 396/34 IPC and Section 25(1) a of the Arms Act. While undergoing imprisonment from 20.11.2005, he was also shown arrested on 23.11.2005 in connection with another case namely GR 185/05 (corresponding to Dimapur West P.S. Case No. 51/05) under Section 397 IPC R/W Section 28 Arms Act. It is this case in respect of which the present appeal has been preferred challenging the impugned judgment of conviction dated 3.7.2012. As noted above, it is that part of the order, by which, the aforesaid provision of commencement of sentence upon expiry of the earlier sentence that has been challenged in this appeal.

(3.) Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the accused appellant placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court (State of Maharashtra v. Najakat Alias Mubarak Ali, 2001 6 SCC 311); (State of Punjab v. Madan Lal, 2009 5 SCC 238) and the Division Bench judgment of this Court (Ealrinfela v. State of Mizoram, 1982 CrLJ 1793) submits that upon conviction of the accused appellant in the previous case i.e. GR 491/05, the accused appellant has completed the period of sentence i.e. RI for 10 years on 2.9.2014. According to him since the accused appellant was shown arrested on 23.11.2005, during subsistence of earlier GR Case No. 491/05, the period of detention the accused appellant has already undergone is required to be set off in respect of the judgment of conviction dated 3.7.2012 challenged in this appeal.