• Chambers of Daksha Kumar

The benefit of set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C. can be invoked only if....

Benefit of set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C. can be invoked only if the detention undergone by the convict is in the ‘same case’: Supreme Court


Section 428 Cr.P.C. provides when the period of detention undergone by the accused is set off against the sentence or imprisonment. It reads as follows: Where an accused person has, on conviction, been sentenced to imprisonment for a term [not being imprisonment in default of payment of fine], the period of detention, if any, undergone by him during the investigation, inquiry or trial of the same case and before the date of such conviction, shall be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him on such conviction, and the liability of a such person to undergo imprisonment on such conviction shall be restricted to the remainder, if any, of the term of imprisonment imposed on him.


The Supreme Court in the matter of Vinay Prakash Singh Vs. Sameer Gehlaut observed that the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. can be invoked only if detention undergone by the convict during investigation, enquiry or trial is in the 'same case'.


The bench of the Supreme Court while referring to the provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C. and case laws regarding it, observed that "As far as Section 428 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, an indispensable requirement to invoke Section 428 of Cr.P.C. is that there must be a conviction. The conviction must be followed by a sentence of imprisonment. It must be for a term and it should not be imprisonment in default of payment of the fine. If these requirements exist, then the occasion opens up for applying the beneficial provisions of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. However, for it to be invoked the existence of detention undergone by the convict during investigation, enquiry or trial in the 'same case' is indispensable. If these requirements are satisfied, the convict would be entitled to the set off for the period of detention that he has undergone."


The Apex Court, therefore, refused his plea to treat the custody undergone by him in connection with another case admittedly as custody undergone in the contempt of Court case.

0 views0 comments