THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY And THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.17028 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C. Bhanu) 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate direction to the respondents to release the petitioner forthwith. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present case, are that the petitioner, namely, Tajmul @ Thajju is A.4 in Special C.C.No.24 of 2009 and shown as A.3 in Special C.C.Nos. 28, 52, 54, 56 and 59 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar, and that along with other accused, he was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 136 of the Electricity Act 2003, (for short ‘the Act’) vide judgment dated 04.06.2010 and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The sentences imposed in the said cases were ordered to be run concurrently and the period of remand of the accused, if any, shall be given set of under Section 428 Cr.P.C. According to the petitioner, he surrendered before the Court on 21.11.2008 and therefore, by this time the period of sentences would have been completed and since the second respondent is not releasing him, he filed the present writ petition. 3. The second respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit wherein the actual remand period underwent by the petitioner is shown as hereunder. Sl. No. Case Nos. U/s Remand Period 1 Spl.C.C.No.24/2009 136 of the Electricity Act 2003 20.01.2009 to Till 04.06.2010 the date of judgment. 2 Spl.C.C.No.58/2009 136 of the Electricity Act 2003 24.11.2009 to Till 04.06.2010 the date of judgment. 3 Spl.C.C.No.56/2009 136 of the Electricity Act 2003 24.11.2009 to Till 04.06.2010 the date of judgment. 4 Spl.C.C.No.54/2009 136 of the Electricity Act 2003 24.11.2009 to Till 04.06.2010 the date of judgment. 5 Spl.C.C.No.28/2009 136 of the Electricity Act 2003 05.08.2009 to Till 04.06.2010 the date of judgment. 6 Spl.C.C.No.52/2009 136 of the Electricity Act 2003 24.11.2009 to Till 04.06.2010 the date of judgment. It is stated in the counter affidavit that as the petitioner surrendered before the Court on 24.11.2009 and was sent to judicial custody, he will be released on 21.11.2010 as the sentence of simple imprisonment for one year would be completed by 21.11.2010, and therefore, there is no violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as seen from the order of warrant of commitment dated 14.06.2010 issued by the Special Court the petitioner has been in judicial remand from 20.01.2009 till the date of judgment, and similarly, the warrant in Special CC No.28 of 2009 would disclose that the petitioner was on remand from 5.08.2009 to this date, and that, as all the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently and the remand period is ordered to be given set off, under Section 428 Cr.P.C., the period of sentence imposed by the Special Court has already been undergone by the petitioner, and hence, further detention of the petitioner is illegal and so, he prays to order release of the petitioner. 5. The contention of the learned counsel representing the Advocate General is that because in four cases, the petitioner is not shown to be in judicial remand earlier to 24.11.2009, the period of judicial custody, if any, of the petitioner in SPL.C.C.No.24 of 2009, cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the period of remand in all the remaining four cases. 6. Under Section 428 Cr.P.C., the Trial Court ordered that the sentence imposed in one case has to run concurrently along with the sentences in other cases and the period of detention, if any, undergone by the petitioner during the investigation, enquiry or the trial of the case, has to be given set off. Under Section 427 Cr.P.C., the Court has the power to direct the sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently with the sentence the accused was already undergoing is to be exercised at the time of awarding subsequent sentence but not afterwards. 7. The judgments in all the cases were pronounced on 04.06.2010. It is not in dispute before this Court that the sentence in one case is ordered to be run concurrently along with the sentence in other cases. It is also not in dispute before this Court that as per the committal warrant dated 04.06.2010 issued by the Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Court, Mahaboobnagar, in Spl.C.C.No.24 of 2009, the petitioner has been in remand from 20.01.2009 to the date of issuance of warrant of commitment i.e., 4.06.2010. Similarly, the petitioner has been on remand in Spl.C.C.No.28 of 2009 from 5.08.2009 till the date of issuing warrant of commitment i.e. on 4.06.2010. Therefore atleast in two cases, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for more than one year. Insofar as the other cases are concerned, the petitioner is shown to be in remand from 24.11.2009. According to the learned counsel representing the learned Advocate General, that date i.e., 24.11.2009 has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the sentence imposed by the trial Court i.e., one year simple imprisonment. But admittedly, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in Spl.C.C.No.24 of 2009 and Spl.C.C.No.28 of 2009 on 20.01.2009 and 5.08.2009 respectively, and the said fact is not in dispute. After arrest of the petitioner in two cases, in all fairness, the police ought to have brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner was already arrested in respect of the other two crimes, so that all the cases can be tried separately and remand period of the accused can be extended from time to time in respect of subsequent four other cases. But, that has not been done so. 8. Now the question for determination is whether the remand period in earlier Spl.C.C.Nos.24 and 28 of 2009 can be taken into consideration for the purpose of giving set off of the sentence imposed in the subsequent cases. 9. If Sections 428 and 427 Cr.P.C., are read conjointly, it is clear that the sentence imposed in subsequent cases shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. Therefore, the contention that the remand period in subsequent cases cannot be taken into consideration, is devoid of merit, in view of the specific provision under Section 427 Cr.P.C., and we hold that the remand period in the first case has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the period of sentence in the subsequent sentences as imposed by the Special Court. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner has been in judicial custody in the first case i.e., Spl.C.C.No.24 of 2009 from 20.1.2009, and if that is taken into consideration, the period of one year simple imprisonment would be completed by 19.01.2010. Even in second case i.e., Spl.C.C.No.28 of 2009 the petitioner has been in judicial custody from 5.08.2009 and if that date is taken into consideration the period of sentence of one year would be completed by 4.08.2010. So, the period of sentence imposed by the Special Court has already been undergone by the petitioner by this time. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to be released forthwith. 11. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. We direct separate sentences of separate trials to run concurrently. The period of pre-conviction detention of the petitioner in Spl.C.C.No.24 of 2009 on the file of the Special Tribunal shall be given set off with the sentences imposed in all other cases. The petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. _____________ K.C.BHANU,J. 17th August, 2010. Js.