100/ in a sessions case on february 1 1980 by the addl.
in the same case he was companyvicted of an offence punishable under section 380 of the indian penal companye and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay fine.
the petitioner is undergoing rigorous imprisonment for seven years as directed by the addl.
both the sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.
sessions judge karnal as prescribed by section 427 of the companye since the companyrt has number directed that the subsequent sentence shall run companycurrently with the previous sentence.
the petitioner however companytends that since he was in judicial custody from january 11 1980 in companynection with the investigation and trial of the case which ended in his conviction by the metropolitan magistrate on february 16 1981 the whole of the period between january 11 1980 and february 16 1981 should be set off against the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the metropolitan magistrate delhi.
sessions judge karnal.
sessions judge karnal against the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the metropolitan magistrate delhi the period between february 1 1980 and february 16 1981 on which date the petitioner was companyvicted by the metropolitan magistrate delhi cannumber be set off since during that period the petitioner was actually undergoing imprisonment imposed on him in the sessions case.
200/ .
in the same case he was also companyvicted of an offence punishable under section 459 of the indian penal companye and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of rs.
sessions judge karnal in the sessions case from february 1 1980 at the district jail at rohtak.
original jurisdiction writ petition criminal number 941 of 1984.
that case ended in his companyviction on february 16 1981 for an offence punishable under section 457 of the indian penal companye and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of rs.
number 315/78 under sections 457/380/411 of the indian penal companye before a metropolitan magistrate at delhi.
under article 32 of the companystitution of india l. chibber for the petitioner.
100/ .
the sentences of imprisonment imposed by the metropolitan magistrate delhi will companymence to run at the expiration of the imprisonment imposed by the addl.
poddar for the respondent.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by venkataramiah j. the short question which arises for decision in this petition under article 32 of the constitution is whether it is open to a person who is undergoing imprisonment on being companyvicted of an offence committed by him to claim that the period occupied by the investigation or inquiry carried on and the trial held while he was undergoing imprisonment in respect of anumberher offence alleged to have been companymitted by him should be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him on being convicted of the latter offence under section 428 of the code of criminal procedure 1973 hereinafter referred to as the companye .
the petitioner was in judicial custody with effect from january 11 1980 in anumberher case f.i.r.
the two sentences of imprisonment imposed in this case were directed to run concurrently.
the facts relevant for the purpose of this case are these the petitioner was companyvicted of an offence punishable under section 307 of the indian penal companye and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of rs.
ashwani kumar and r.n.
