Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJAN, C.NO versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RAJAN, C.NO v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Crl MC No. 460 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 5864 (21 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 460 of 2007()

1. RAJAN, C.NO.
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT,

For Petitioner :SRI.SAJEEV.T.P.

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :21/03/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 460 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 21st day of March, 2007

O R D E R

The petitioner faced indictment in a prosecution under Sections 302 and 376 I.P.C. He was tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta in S.C.No.22 of 1999. He was found not guilty and acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge.

2. The State preferred an appeal and a Division Bench of this Court by order dt. 15.7.2003 set aside the judgment of acquittal and found the appellant guilty. He was convicted and sentenced. The sentences under various sections were directed to run concurrently. It was specifically observed in the said judgment that:

"The period of detention, if any, he has undergone as an under trial prisoner during investigation, enquiry or trial of this case shall be set off against the term of imprisonment." Warrant of commitment was issued by this Court and the petitioner was sent to prison. In the said warrant of commitment also it is specifically stated that: Crl.M.C.No. 460 of 2007 2 "The period of detention, if any, he has undergone as an under

trial prisoner during investigation, enquiry or trial of this case shall be set off against the term of imprisonment." The petitioner is now undergoing the sentence. The petitioner has come to this court complaining that the petitioner has not been granted the benefit of set off in as much as the judgment of conviction and sentence as also the committal warrant issued do not specify the period for which the petitioner is entitled for set off.

3. Notice was ordered to the Prosecutor and the Superintendent of Central Prison, Trivandrum. The report of the Superintendent shows that the period of set off having not been specified in the warrant, he has not been able to grant set off. The report of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta shows clearly that on perusal of the case records the petitioner was in judicial custody from 3.12.1997 to 23.8.2000 and he is entitled for set off for this period, both days inclusive.

4. The short prayer of the petitioner now is that it may be specified that the petitioner is entitled to set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. for the said period from 3.12.97 to 23.8.2000. I am certainly satisfied that the prayer of the petitioner is absolutely justified. Crl.M.C.No. 460 of 2007 3

5. This Crl.M.C. is allowed It is declared that the petitioner is entitled for set off from 3.12.1997 to 23.8.2000. The Registry shall communicate this order to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Trivandrum, who shall ensure that the petitioner is granted the benefit of such set off. (R. BASANT) Judge tm


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.