ATUL MANUBHAI PAREKH Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl. M.P. No. 13384 of 2009 has been filed in Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2004, which was disposed of by this Court by judgment and order dated 7th August, 2009, upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 120B and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days. By the same order, the appellant was also granted the benefit of set-off for the period of detention he had already undergone under Section 428 Cr.P.C. This application has been filed on behalf of the appellant, Atul Manubhai Parekh, for a direction that he be entitled to set-off of 30 days in the present case against the detention of 15 days already undergone by him.

(2.) The short point involved in this application is whether a person, who has been convicted in several cases and has suffered detention or imprisonment in connection therewith, would be entitled to the benefit of set-off in a separate case for the period of detention or imprisonment undergone by him in the other cases.

(3.) Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that the right of a convict to be allowed set-off in one case in respect of detention or imprisonment undergone by him in other cases, fell for the consideration of this Court in State of Maharashtra and ANOTHER v. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali, (2001) 6 SCC 311, wherein three Judges of this Court had occasion to consider the provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C., and it was the majority view that the period of imprisonment undergone by an accused as an undertrial during investigation, enquiry or trial of a particular case, irrespective of whether it was in connection with that very case or other cases, could be set-off against the sentence of imprisonment imposed on conviction in that particular case. Their Lordships held that the words "same case" used in Section 428 do not suggest that set-off would be available only if the period undergone as an undertrial prisoner is in connection with the same case in which he was later convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. According to Their Lordships, the said expression merely denoted the pre-sentence period of detention undergone by an accused and nothing more.