As the accused respondent was benefited by the decision of the High Court he would have been released from jail.
That second case also ended in companyviction and the Metropolitan Magistrate sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year on 16.2.1981.
As he was arrested on the same day in companynection with both the cases he remained in jail as an under trial prisoner during the same period in both cases.
That resolution reads thus If a prisoner is companyvicted in different cases, and different set off period is granted by different companyrts then in that case maximum period of set off in one case should be granted to prisoners, as other set off period will be merged in the set off which is the maximum.
When the special leave petition in this case came up for companysideration on 20.1.2000, we felt that since Raghbir Singh was decided by a two Judge Bench it would be appropriate that this matter is heard by a larger Bench so that a fresh look can be made on Section 428 of the Code.
The Sessions Judge who companyvicted him in S.C. 230 of 1995 on 3.4.1998, while sentencing him, directed that the accused would be entitled to the set off under Section 428 of the Code.
One was numbered S.C.230 of 1995 and the other as S.C.313 of 1996.
The respondent prisoner was released by the jail authorities before the Government of Maharashtra took up the matter to this Court.
The facts out of which the aforesaid question has winched to the fore can be stated briefly thus Respondent accused was tried in two cases.
That accused claimed set off from 11.1.1980 till the dates of companyviction in each cases.
He was arrested on 21.9.1995 in companynection with both cases.
THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
LITTTTTTTJ An accused has been companyvicted and sentenced to imprisonment in two criminal cases.
The jail authorities did so on the strength of a Resolution dated 7.9.1974 adopted by the Government of Maharashtra.
