Zora Singh and others vs The State

Passey, J.—This is an application under S. 561-A of Criminal P.C.

Zora Singh and Kundha Singh petitioner along with another were convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment under Ss. 366/376, I.P.C., by order of the trial Magistrate dated 10-1-1953. Both of them along with two others were in a separate trial also held guilty under Ss. 324/323, I.P.C. and awarded different terms of imprisonment on 14-3-1953.

Their imprisonment under Ss. 366/376, I.P.C., commenced first but their conviction on those charges was quashed by this Court when their appeal was accepted on 4-9-1953. They had by that time undergone rigorous imprisonment or seven months and twenty-five days.

No appeal had been field by them against the order of their conviction dated 14-3-1953, which had, therefore, become final. They have now moved this Court to obtain an order that they should be deemed to have been undergoing their sentence of imprisonment under Ss. 324/323, I.P.C., from the date of their conviction for those offences, viz., 14-3-1953. I am of the view that the request is reasonable and should be allowed.

Acquittal means a deliverance and setting free of a person from suspicion or guilt of an offence. Naturally, therefore, when a man is pronounced to be not guilty the immunity from the charge and punishment must operate from the date of his conviction and not from the date of the appellate or revisional court reverses the conviction. He must be taken to have been set free from the date his conviction was recorded as if no punishment was ever imposed upon him.

There can be little justification for holding, and, as a matter of fact, it would be harsh if it is so done, that imprisonment already suffered by a convict should be counted as of no matter. It is true that in same cases a convict undergoes some imprisonment or full term of his imprisonment before his appeal or revision is accepted by an appellate or revisional court and no relief for the undergone term can be afforded to him, but it would not be just or fair to refuse relief where it can be granted and credit for the undergone term or a part thereof can be given when the convict is still suffering imprisonment on a different count.

It would again appear to me to be entirely immaterial if the sentences were passed at different trials and on different dates. The rule of appropriation enunciated above should be applicable to those cases as well as, it is the right of an individual to have his undergone sentence that has been washed away by an order of his acquittal taken into account so as to make his sentence on the subsequent count to run from the date of his conviction therefor and not from the date when his conviction on the earlier charge was set at naught.

I consequently accept the petition and order that the sentence of imprisonment of Kundha Singh under S. 324, I.P.C. and of Zora Singh under S. 323, I.P.C. shall commence from the date of their conviction (14-3-1953) and not from the date of the acceptance of their appeal in the 366-376, I.P.C., case. Zora Singh, who is on bail since 14-10-1953 has been remanded to custody for undergoing the remaining term of imprisonment. The period during which he has been on bail shall be excluded when computing the terms of imprisonment to which he was sentenced.