AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Motilal B. Naik, J.—In these three petitions which are filed u/s 482 of Cr.PC, petitioners have sought a direction to the learned Sessions Judge, Cuddapah to issue fresh warrants of commitment to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddapab, indicating that the period of detention undergone by them prior to their conviction and sentence in SC No.225 of 1994 dated 24-10-1996 by the Sessions Judge, Cuddapah be given set-off even against the sentence of life imprisonment, imposed on them through the said judgment.
According to the learned senior Counsel Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, appearing on behalf of these petitioners, these petitioners were found guilty of committing various including the offences u/s 302 IPC and Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life by the Sessions Judge, Cuddapah through judgment dated 24-10-1996 in SC No.225 of 1994. Learned senior Counsel stated that though these petitioners filed Criminal Appeals against the judgment in SC No.225/94 dated 24-10-1996 before this Court, this Court by judgment dated 24-7-1998 dismissed those Criminal Appeal Nos.917, 918 and 919 of 1996 while confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on these petitioners by the trial Court.
Learned senior Counsel further contended that in terms of Section 428 of Cr.PC, life convicts are also entitled for set-off in respect of the period of detention undergone by them during pre-trial period. However, learned Counsel complained that while issuing the warrants of commitment, the learned Sessions Judge, Cuddapah has indicated that these petitioners are entitled for set-off in respect of the period of detention undergone by them during pre-trial stage in SC No.225 of 1994 pertaining to offences punishable under Sections 148 and 323 IPC and not for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC under which section the petitioners were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.
A Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (Dr. Motilal B. Naik, J) is a party, in Criminal Petition No.445 of 1999 in Criminal Appeal No.466 of 1991 had occasion to consider the implication of the contingency arising out of granting set-off in respect of the period of detention already undergone by the accused persons during pre-trial period, u/s 428 of Cr.PC pertaining to the sentences awarded for the offences punishable u/s 302 IPC also. Following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhagirath Vs. Delhi Administration, , the Division Bench, by an order dated 28-4-1999 held that the benefit arising out of Section 428 of Cr.PC could be extended to the convicts who are sentenced to suffer life imprisonment also.
In view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the above decision which is followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.445 of 1999 dated 28-4-1999 as indicated above, we hold that these petitioners are also entitled for the benefit of set-off in respect of the period of detention undergone by them prior to their conviction, u/s 428 of Cr.PC even for the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on them in SC No.225 of 1994 by the Sessions Judge, Cuddapah, by judgment dated 24-10-1996. We accordingly direct the learned Sessions Judge, Cuddapah, to issue modified warrants of commitment to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddapah indicating the entitlement of the petitioners for the set-off period u/s 428 Cr.PC even for the sentence of imprisonment for life.
These petitions are ordered accordingly.