2009 (3) TMI 912 - SC - Indian Laws

Very often it happens when an accused is convicted in one case under different counts of offences and sentenced to different terms of imprisonment under each such count all such sentences are directed to run concurrently. The idea behind it is that the imprisonment to be suffered by him for one count of offence will in fact and in effect be imprisonment for other count as well. Reading Section 428 of the Code in the above perspective the words of the same case are not to be understood as suggesting that the set off is allowable only if the earlier jail life was undergone by him exclusively for the case in which the sentence is imposed. The period during which the accused was in prison subsequent to the inception of a particular case should be credited towards the period of imprisonment awarded as sentence in that particular case. It is immaterial that the prisoner was undergoing sentence of imprisonment in another case also during the said period. The words of the same case were used to refer to the pre-sentence period of detention undergone by him. Nothing more can be made out of the collocation of those words.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against judgment allowing concurrent running of sentences for multiple convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Interpretation of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting off the period of detention as an under-trial prisoner against the sentence of imprisonment imposed.

Analysis:
1. The State of Punjab appealed against a judgment allowing concurrent running of sentences for three convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The High Court directed that sentences imposed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, and Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna should run concurrently. The State contended that the High Court's judgment was erroneous, citing the rule of thumb for concurrent sentences in cases involving multiple offenses under different enactments. The High Court referred to previous judgments emphasizing concurrent sentences for related transactions unless the facts constituting the offenses are distinct.

2. The judgment discussed the interpretation of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting off the period of detention as an under-trial prisoner against the sentence of imprisonment imposed. Referring to the purpose of Section 428, the judgment highlighted the legislative intent to provide relief to prisoners who spent excessive time as under-trial prisoners. The judgment explained that the convicted person has the right to reckon the period of detention as part of the sentence imposed. The conditions for setting off the period of detention were outlined, emphasizing that if the sentence is longer than the period of detention, the convict should only serve the balance period. The judgment clarified that the set off applies even if the prisoner was undergoing imprisonment in another case simultaneously.

3. Justice Thomas and Justice Phukan provided concurring opinions on the interpretation of the expression "same case" in Section 428. Justice Thomas emphasized that the period of detention must be credited towards the sentence in the particular case, regardless of whether the prisoner was serving a sentence in another case simultaneously. Justice Phukan agreed with this interpretation, stating that any period not connected with the case in question cannot be considered for set off. The judgment concluded that the appeal lacked merit and directed dismissal based on the interpretation of Section 428 and the legislative intent behind it.