AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Lahiri, J
Register the application as a separate Misc. Case. The Petitioner is stated to be the wife of the accused, who was Appellant before this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 94/75. The Petitioner complains that her husband baa been convicted u/s 304 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides inter alia:
Where an accused person has, on conviction, been sentenced to imprisonment for a term, the period of detention, if any, undergone by him during the investigation, inquiry OF trial of the same case and before the date of such conviction, shall be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him.
It is, therefore, seen that entire period of detention of an accused during the investigation, inquiry or trial must be set off against the term of imprisonment. If the accused was granted bail but could not avail the liberty for failure to furnish security or for any other reason, and continued in jail, he shall be entitled to set off u/s 423 of "the Code". In Suraj Bhan Vs. Om Prakash and Another, the Supreme Court had held that the benefit of Section 423 can be claimed by a person convicted before the new Code came into force provided his sentence was continuing when the new Code was enforced. In Matabar Parida, Bisnu Charan Parida, Batakrushna Parida and Babaji Parida Vs. The State of Orissa, the same conclusion was reached by their Lordship; with the aid of Section 484(2)(b) of the Code. The question has been explained by this Court in Lalrinfela v. State of Mizoram 1982 Cri.C.J. 1978 : 1982(1) GLR 569 wherein it has been stated that Section 428 confers a statutory right to a convict to claim reduction of his liability to undergo imprisonment. The section is beneficial and confers on the convict a legal right to claim reduction to undergo imprisonment for the period he had already served as an under trial prisoner. The law has been clearly set out in Lalrinfela (supra).
We are of the opinion that the accused is entitled to set off the period undergone by him as a prisoner during investigation, inquiry and trial of the case and the State and the officers holding the accused in jail, namely, the Superintendent of District Jail, Karimanj, shall grant set off to the accused Ranada Kanta Nath to which he is entitled in terms of the provisions contained in Section 428, Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the result, the petition is accepted. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the prisoner in jail and to the Superintendents of District Jail, Silchar and Karimganj. As prayed for by Mr. D.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. Public Prosecutor, Assam a copy of this order may also be sent to the Inspector General of Prisons, Assam, Gauhati. We are of the opinion that the Inspector General of Prisons, on perusal of the decision referred above, shall issue necessary direction to the subordinate officers under him to act in accordance with law.