RAGHBIR SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 724 · Decided: 13-09-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
D 
E 
( 
RAGHBIR SINGH 
v. 
STATEOF HARYANA 
September 13, 1984 
(E.S. VBNKATARAMll\ll AND SABYASACH! MUKHARJI, JJ ,) 
Code of Criminal Procedur e 197 3 (Act Tl of 1974) Section 428 read with 
Punjab & Haryana High Court Instruction No. 
29442 Rules VJ. v. 38 dt. 
19. Jl.1945 Scope of-Set off against the terni of imprisonment of period of 
dentention undergone by an accused, explained-Whether it is open to a person 
who is undergoing imprisonment on being convicted of an offence committed by 
him to claim that the period occupied by the investigation or inquiry carried on 
and the trial held while he was undergoing imprisonment in respect of another 
offence alleged to have been committed by him should be set off against the term 
of imprisonment imposed on hi1n on being convicted of the latter offence. 
The petitioner was ~nvicted for an offence under Section 307 and Section 
459 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced on February 1, 1980 to a tern1 of 
rigorous imprisonment. During the pcndency of the trial the petitioner was in 
judicial custody with effect from January 11, 1980 in another case F.LR. 315/78 
under Sections 457/380/411 of the Jndian Penal Code which also ended in his 
conviction on February 16, 1981 and was sentenced for a term of rigorous 
imprisonment. In the latter case it was ordered that the petitioner was entitled 
to the set off as provided by Section 428 of the Code. The petitioner clai1ned 
that in spite of his conviction in the earlier case fro1n February 1, 1980 he was 
entitled for set off from 11. I. 1980)0~16. 2. 81. The question in the present 
F 
Writ Petition is whether such a claim 'is in order. 
G 
Dismissing the Writ Petition, the Court 
HELD : 1. The petitioner is not entitled to claim that the period between 
February 1, 1980 on which date he was convicted in the Sessions Case and 
February 16, 1981 on which date he was convicted by the Metropolitan Magis-
trate, Delhi in another case when he was undergoing imprisonment i111poscd on 
him in the Sessions Case should be] set off against the term of imprisonment 
imposed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.~ That period should be counted 
as part of the imprisonment undergone by the petitioner as directed in the 
Sessions Case. [728G-HJ 
2 : l. Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 was introduced 
ff 
with the object of remedying the unsatisfactory state of affairs that was prevail-
• 
' 
• 
• 
• 
• 
' 
; 
kAOHBiR SINGH v. iiAkYANA (Venkataramiah, J.) 
725 
ing when the former Code of 1898 was in force. It was then found that many 
A 
persons were being detained in prison at the pre-conviction stage for unduly 
long periods, many times for periods longer than the actual sentence of impri· 
sonment that could be imposed on them on conviction. -[727F-G] 
2 : 2. In order to secure the benefit of Section 428 of the Code1 the prisoner 
should show that he had been detained in prison for the purpose of investigation 
inquiry or trial of the case in which he is later on convicted and sentenced. It 
follows that if a person is undergoing the sentence of imprisonment imposed by 
a court of law on being convicted of an offence in one case during the period 
of investigation, inquiry or trial of some other case, he cannot claim that the 
period occupied by such investigation, iriquiry or trial should be set off against 
the sentence of imprisonment to be imposed in the latter case even though he 
had been detained during such period. In such a case the period of dentention 
is really a part of the period of imprisonment which he is undergoing having 
been sentenced earlier for another offence. It is not the period of detention 
undergone by him during the investigation, inquiry or trial of the same case in 
which he is later on convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment. He 
cannot claim a double benefit under Section 428 of the Code that is the same 
period being counted as part of the period of in1prisonment imposed for com-
B 
c 
mitting the former offence and also being set off against the period of imprison-
D 
mcnt imposed for committing the latter offence as weJI. The instruction issued 
by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana No. 29442 Rules VI. V. 38 dated 29th 
November, 1975 is unexceptionable. [727G~H] 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 941 of 
1984. 
(Under ariticle 32 of the Constitution of India) 
S.L. Chibber for the Petitioner. 
Ashwani Kumar and R.N. Podaar for the Respondent. 
The

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.