AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kailasam, J.—This petition it filed by a relation of one Mannicketh Balachandran for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus for production of
the said Mannicketh Balachandran for being dealt with according to Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Mannicketh Balachandran was an ex-naval officer In the Indian Navy. He was tried by the court Martial at Bombay for certain offences u/s
409, I.P C. read with S. 77 of the Navy Act and sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for 18 months on 21st August 1972. He was
committed to the Central Prison, Bombay, on 22nd November 1974 to undergo the sentence. He was convicted by another Court Martial on 12th
March 1975 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for offences u/s 77(11) and 41(e) of the Navy Act. The Court ordered that the
sentences should run consecutively. In all, therefore, the detenue has to serve a sentence of two years'' rigorous imprisonment from 22nd
November 1974.
It is now contended by Mr. Sivasubramaniam, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that as the detenue was kept under naval custody from 10th
May 1972 to 22nd August 1972 and again from 7th November 1974 to 21st November 1974, this period, though it was before be was convicted
on 21st November 1974, ought to have been given credit to. The period thus claimed is 3 months and 12 days between 10th May 1972 and 22nd
August 1972 and Anr. 14 days between 7th November 1974 and 21st November 1974, making in all 3 months and 27 days. According to the
learned Counsel, if the remission to which be is entitled on other grounds, such as undergoing vasectomy operation and donating blood, the total
period would be 65 days and that he would have completed his term of imprisonment on 5th February 1976.
There is no material to come to the conclusion as to-whether under the Navy Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the detenue is entitled to
credit of any term of imprisonment for undergoing the vasectomy or for donating blood and that he has been refused such reduction. In this petition
we are concerned only with the deduction claimed by the detenue for the period during which he was in custody before his conviction, and passing
of sentence. The plea of the learned Counsel in short is that the provisions of S. 428 of the Crl.P.C., 1973 (Act 2 of 1974), should be given effect
to. Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides:
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 or trial of the same case and before the date of such conviction, shall be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed
on him on such conviction....
There is no such provision on the Navy Act. Section 5 of the Crl P.C. says that the Code is not applicable where any special form of procedure is
prescribed by any special or local law. The Naval Law is a special law wherein an elaborate procedure is prescribed for conducting a trial and for
execution of sentences. In Chapter XIV of the Act, S. 151 provides:
Subject to the provisions of sub-S.(2), every term of imprisonment or detention awarded in pursuance of this Act shall be reckoned as
commencing on the day on which the sentence was awarded.
Sub-S.(2) is not applicable. Therefore, it is clear that the sentence will have to be reckoned as commencing on the day on which the sentence was
awarded.
The Navy Act being a special enactment and the application of the Crl.P.C., has been excluded, the operation of S. 151 of the Navy Act is only
applicable. This plea, therefore that the period of detention undergone by the detenue before the sentence was passed on him should be given
credit to, cannot be accepted. In this view, this petition is dismissed.