ATUL MANUBHAI PAREKH versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 1105 · Decided: 24-11-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1105 
ATUL MANUBHAI PAREKH 
A 
-~ 
v. 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
(Criminal M.P. No. 13384 of 2009) 
IN 
(Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2004) 
B 
NOVEMBER 24, 2009 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSPEH, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 428 - Benefit of 
set-off - For the period of detention or imprisonment, c 
undergone by the accused in another case - Held: Period to 
be set-off relates only to pre-conviction detention, and not to 
imprisonment on conviction - In case of s. 428, question of 
,. 
merger does not arise - Period of set-off is in respect of each 
' 
separate case. 
D' 
.i 
The question for consideration in the present cases 
~ 
was whether a person, who has been convicted in several 
.. 
cases and has suffered detention or imprisonment in 
~ 
connection therewith, would be entitled to the benefit of 
set-off in a separate case for the period of detention or 
E' 
imprisonment undergone by him in the other cases. 
Dismissing the applications, the Court 
HELD: 1. The heading of Section 428 Cr.P.C. itself 
indicates that the period of detention undergone by the 
I 
accused is to be set-off against the sentence of F 
imprisonment. The Section makes it clear that the period 
of sentence on conviction is to be reduced by the extent 
of detention already undergone by the convict during 
investigation, enquiry or trial of the same case. It is quite 
clear that the period to be set-off relates only to pre 
G 
conviction detention and not to imprisonment on 
conviction. [Para 9] [1110-G-H; 1111-A] 
2. Section 428 Cr.P.C. deals with a situation, where the 
question of merger of sentence does not arise and the 
1105 
H 
1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
period of set-off is in respect of each separate case and 
the detention undergone by the accused during the 
:. ' 
investigation or trial of such case. [Para 10] (1111-D] 
Champa/al Punjaji Shah vs. State of Maharashtra (1982) 
1 SCC 507; Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana (1984) 4 SCC 
B 
348; Government of A.P. vs. Anne Venkateswara Rao (1977) 
3 SCC 298; Maliyakkal Abdul Azeez vs. Asstt. Collector, 
Kera/a and Anr. (2003) 2 SCC 439, relied on. 
State of Maharashtra and Anr. vs. Najakat Alia Mubarak 
Ali (2001) 6 SCC 311, distinguished. 
1 
c 
Case Law Reference : 
(1982) 1 sec so1 
Relied on. 
Para 6 
(1984) 4 sec 348 
Relied on. 
Para 8 
(1977) 3 sec 298 
Relied on. 
Para 10 
D 
(2003) 2 sec 439 
Relied on. 
Para 11 
' ' 
(2001) 6 SCC.311 
Distinguished. 
Para 13 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : CRLMP No. 
'-.. 
13384 of 2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2004. 
~ 
E 
From the Judgment & Order dated 04.12.2003 of the 
Special Court constituted under the Special Court (Trial of 
Offences Relating to Transaction in Securities) Act, 1992 at 
Bombay in Case No. 2 of 1993. 
WITH 
F CRLMP. No. 13382 of 2009 in Crl. A No. 905 of 2005; 
CRLMP. No. 13381 of 2009 in Crl. A No. 925 of 2005; and 
' 
CRLMP. No. 17357 of 2009 in Crl. A No. 90 of 2004. 
P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Kamini Jaiswal, I. H. Syed, Varinder 
.. , 
Kumar Sharma, Abhimanue Shrestha, P. Parmeswaran, Mohan 
G Parasaran, P.K. Dey, AK. Sharan, T.A Khan, Subhash Kaushik, 
R.K. Tanwal, AK. Sharma, for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Crl. M.P. No.13384 of 2009 has 
~ 
H 
been filed in Criminal Appeal No.164 of 2004, which was 
\ ., 
-
\ 
ATUL MANUBHAI PAREKH v. CENTRAL BUREAU 1107 
OF INVESTIGATION [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.] 
disposed of by this Court by judgment and order dated 7th 
A 
August, 2009, upholding the conviction of the appellant under 
Section 120-B and sentencing him to undergo rigorous 
imprisonment for a period of 15 days and to pay a fine of 
Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a 
further period of 15 days. By the same order, the appellant was 
also granted the benefit of set-off for the period of detention he 
had already undergone under Section 428 Cr.P.C. This 
application has been filed on behalf of the appellant, Atul 
Manubhai Parekh, for a direction that he be entitled to set-off of 
B 
30 days in the present case against the detention of 15 days 
already undergone by him. 
2. The short point involved in this application is whether a 
person, who has been convicted in several cases and has 
suffered detention or imprisonment in connection therewith, 
would be entitled to the benefit of set-off in a separate case for 
c 
the period of detention or imprisonment under
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.