1974 (11) TMI 101 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 428 of the new CrPC to cases where the conviction occurred before its commencement.
2. Whether Section 428 applies to sentences of imprisonment in default of payment of fine.
3. Consideration of pre-conviction detention by the High Court while reducing the sentence.

Summary:

1. Applicability of Section 428 of the new CrPC:
The primary issue was whether Section 428 of the new CrPC applies only to cases where a person is convicted after the new code came into force or also to cases where the conviction occurred before but the sentence was still running. The Court held that Section 428 applies to both scenarios. The section states that the period of detention undergone during investigation, inquiry, or trial should be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on conviction. The Court emphasized that the language of the section is neutral and does not specify a particular point in time for the conviction and sentence. Therefore, even if the conviction occurred before the new CrPC came into force, Section 428 would still apply if the sentence was still running.

2. Applicability to sentences of imprisonment in default of payment of fine:
The State contended that Section 428 should only apply to substantive sentences of imprisonment and not to sentences of imprisonment in default of payment of fine. The Court rejected this argument, stating that both types of sentences are within the scope of Section 428. The Court reasoned that the object of Section 428 is to prevent accused persons from suffering jail life for periods disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. Therefore, the period of detention should be set off against both substantive sentences and sentences in default of payment of fine.

3. Consideration of pre-conviction detention by the High Court:
The State argued that since the High Court had already considered the pre-conviction detention while reducing the sentence from four years to two years, the petitioner should not be allowed to claim the benefit of Section 428 again. The Court dismissed this argument, stating that Section 428 is absolute in its terms and does not provide for any exceptions. The section mandates the set-off of pre-conviction detention against the term of imprisonment imposed on conviction, irrespective of whether the court had already considered it while imposing the sentence.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the detention of the petitioner since 12th August 1974 was illegal and directed that he should be set at liberty forthwith. The Court also overruled the decision of the Delhi High Court, which had taken a different view on the interpretation of Section 428.