IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3544 of 2010() ----------------------------------------- CC.2765/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED --------------------------------------- BABITHA P.S., W/O.LAL, AGED 33 YEARS, THALAKKATTIL HOUSE, NANTHIKKARA P.O., NELLAYI, KOLATHOOR, THRISSUR (NOW UNDERGOING REMAND IN VIYYUR CENTRAL JAIL, THRISSUR). BY ADV. SRI.SIVARAM.R.MENON RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.3544 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 6th September, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner was the accused in 27 cases, taken cognizance for the offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act lodged by different complainants. She was convicted and sentenced. She was granted set off during the period for which she has been in custody in 15 cases, wherein she was remanded by the court during trial. As there was no remand in 12 cases set off was not allowed. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that petitioner should have been granted set off in all the cases and she should also be permitted to undergo one sentence for all Crmc 3544/10 2 the cases. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel is that as the petitioner was in judicial custody, he should have been granted set off in all cases. Unless petitioner is remanded in that particular case, she cannot be granted the benefit under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure in that case. Learned Magistrate has granted benefit under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure in all cases where she was remanded. Petitioner could not be granted set off under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure in 12 cases, as she was not remanded in those cases. Hence, I find no illegality in not granting set off in those cases. 4. Argument of the learned counsel Crmc 3544/10 3 is that if petitioner has to undergo separate sentences in all the cases, she has to undergo imprisonment till 28/12/2012 and therefore, direction is to be issued to treat one sentence as sentence in all the cases. Legally it is not permissible. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced separately in 27 cases. Unless sentence was concurrent, she cannot be permitted to undergo one sentence in all the cases. In such circumstances, petition can only be dismissed. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.