Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

L. Ramesh Vs. the Superintendent, Central Prison and ors.

L. Ramesh vs The Superintendent, Central Prison and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Feb 04, 1991
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/435352

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 172 of 1991
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Petition dismissed
Acts & sections
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 428 and 482

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

L. Ramesh

Advocate P. Raghava Reddy, Adv.

Respondent

The Superintendent, Central Prison and ors.

Advocate Additional Public Prosecutor

Legal References

Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 428 and 482
Reported In
1991(2)ALT619

Excerpt

- ordern.d. patnaik, j.1. the petitioner who is accused no. 1 m sessions case no. 74/84 on the file of the sessions judge, nalgonda was granted bail pending criminal appeal no. 267/86 which was ultimately disposed of with some modification. the petitioner was in jail during the period from 13-5-1986 to 7-11-1986 in connection with another case.2. this petition is filed to deduct that period during which he was in jail from the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him in crl. a.no. 267/86. section 428 criminal procedure code says that 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 coviction, shall be set-off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him on such conviction.3. in this case, since the petitioner was in jail during the period from 13-5-1986 to 7-11-1986 in connection with the trial of another case which ultimately ended in acquittal, that period cannot be set off against the imprisonment awarded to him in criminal appeal no. 267/86 which was filed against the order in session case no. 74/84.4. therefore, the petition is dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

N.D. Patnaik, J.

1. The Petitioner who is accused No. 1 m Sessions case No. 74/84 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Nalgonda was granted bail pending Criminal appeal No. 267/86 which was ultimately disposed of with some modification. The petitioner was in jail during the period from 13-5-1986 to 7-11-1986 in connection with another case.

2. This petition is filed to deduct that period during which he was in jail from the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him in Crl. A.No. 267/86. Section 428 Criminal Procedure Code says that 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 coviction, shall be set-off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him on such conviction.

3. In this case, since the petitioner was in jail during the period from 13-5-1986 to 7-11-1986 in connection with the trial of another case which ultimately ended in acquittal, that period cannot be set off against the imprisonment awarded to him in Criminal appeal No. 267/86 which was filed against the order in Session Case No. 74/84.

4. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial