MR. VINAY PRAKASH SINGH versus SAMEER GEHLAUT & ORS. IN THE MATTER OF:- SHIVINDER MOHAN SINGH

Citation: [2022] 8 S.C.R. 660 · Decided: 14-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
660
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
   [2022] 8 S.C.R. 660
660
MR. VINAY PRAKASH SINGH
v.
SAMEER GEHLAUT & ORS.
IN THE MATTER OF:-
SHIVINDER MOHAN SINGH
(Miscellaneous Application No.1902 of 2022)
With
(I.A. No.157792/2022 )
In
(Contempt Petition (Civil) No.2120 of 2018)
In
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.20417 of 2017)
NOVEMBER 14, 2022
[K. M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.428 – Period of
detention undergone to be set off against the sentence or
imprisonment – When – Applicant was found guilty of contempt by
order dtd.15.11.19, was sentenced for 6 months imprisonment by
order dtd.22.09.22 – Present application seeks clarification w.r.t
the date of commencement of the term of imprisonment, which as
per the applicant should be from 03.02.20 instead of 22.09.22, as
he has been in custody since then though in another case – Held:
Applicant stood convicted by order dtd.15.11.19 – The Court before
sentencing had to cause the production of the applicant – Applicant
was already undergoing pre-trial custody in connection with another
case – Therefore, he had to be produced from the custody which he
was undergoing in that case – He was produced– Merely because
Supreme Court after convicting the applicant by order dtd.15.11.19
caused the production of the applicant before it for the imposition
of an appropriate sentence, it cannot be said that the applicant
would be in custody – An indispensable requirement to invoke s.428
is that there must be a conviction followed by a sentence of
imprisonment for a term and it should not be imprisonment in default
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
661
of payment of fine – Detention undergone by the convict during
investigation, enquiry or trial must be in the ‘same case’ – In the
present case, the applicant has not undergone any detention in
connection with the contempt case – Custody undergone by the
applicant admittedly in connection with another case cannot be
understood as custody undergone in the contempt of Court case –
No clarification as sought, can be issued.
Judgments/Orders – Interpretation of – Held: A judgment of
a Court is not to be read shorn of the facts and the context in which
the law has been declared.
Dismissing the application, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 428 of Cr.P.C. on which the applicant
lays considerable store by, actually contemplates the presence
of two circumstances. During the stage of investigation, inquiry
or trial of a particular case the prisoner should have been in jail
at least for a certain period. The second requisite is that he should
have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment in that case. In
the facts of this case, the applicant was in custody admittedly in
connection with another case on 15.11.2019 as also on 03.02.2020
and also on 16.03.2020. For the mere reason that this Court after
convicting the applicant by order dated 15.11.2019 caused the
production of the applicant before this Court for the purpose of
considering the imposition of an appropriate sentence, it cannot
be said that the applicant would be in custody. In this regard it is
noticed that in the order dated 15.11.2019, the Court
contemplated a chance being afforded to the applicant to purge
himself of the contempt. [Para 9][666-G-H; 667-A-C]
State of Maharashtra and Another versus Najakat Alia
Mubarak Ali (2001) 6 SCC 311 : [2001] 3 SCR 600 –
referred to.
1.2 A judgment of a Court is not to be read as the Euclid’s
Theorem shorn of the facts and the context in which the law has
been declared. [Para 11][668-F-G]
Niranjan Singh and Another Versus Prabhakar Rajaram
Kharote and Others (1980) 2 SCC 559: [1980] 3 SCR
15 – distinguished.
MR. VINAY PRAKASH SINGH v. SAMEER GEHLAUT
& ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
662
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
1.3 An indispensable requirement to invoke Section 428 of
Cr.P.C. is that there must be a conviction. The conviction must
be followed by a sentence of imprisonment. It must be for a term
and it should not be imprisonment in default of payment of fine. If
these requirements exist, then the occasion opens up for applying
the beneficial provisions of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. However, for
it to be invoked the existence of detention undergone by the
convict during investigation, enquiry or trial in the ‘same case’ is
indispensable. If these requirements are satisfied, the convict
would be entitled to the set off for the period of detention which
he has undergone. In this case, the applicant has not undergone
any
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.