IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2182 of 2008() ------------------------------ C.C.NO.1055 OF 2000 ON THE FILE OF THE J.F.C.M, PERUMBAVOOR CRA NO.621 OF 2007 OF THE COURT OF SESSIONS, ERNAKULAM\ REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED ----------------------------------- SHAHUL HAMEED, S/O.SHOUKATH ALI, ALUVA VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT RENTED HOUSE OF PALLIPARLAMBIL VEEDU, POONITHURA VILLAGE, PALARIVATTOM, THAMMANAM ROAD, (CONVICT NO.2801 CENTRAL PRISON, VIYUR) BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: PLAINTIFF ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, (CRIME NO.152 OF 2000 OF KALADY POLICE STATION). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.2182 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16 th day of July, 2008 ORDER The petitioner who is the 1st accused in C.C.No.1055 of 2000 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Perumbavoor was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 379 read with 34 IPC for the theft of a tempo van. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 ½ years. His conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Court, Ernakulam in Crl.Appeal No.621 of 2007. 2. The limited grievance voiced by the revision petitioner is that both the courts below declined to give him set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C on the ground that the period of detention undergone by him was not in the same case within the meaning of Section 428 Cr.P.C and therefore he is not entitled to have the period of detention set off in this case. I find merit in the said grievance. The view taken by the courts below cannot be sustained for the following reasons:- The occurrence in this case took place on 2.5.2000 and the Crl.R.P.No.2182 of 2008 2 de facto complainant allegedly lost the tempo van in question resulting in the Kalady Police registering Crime No.152/2000 on 3.5.2000. The petitioner and others were arrested on 8.5.2000 by PW1, the Circle Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Town South Police Station. At the time of arrest the petitioner was driving the vehicle which was allegedly stolen from the possession of PW1. Since the petitioner was found in suspicious circumstances, and was unable to satisfactorily account for his possession of the tempo van, the Circle Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Town South Police Station(PW7) registered crime No.129 of 2000 under Section 41(1)(d) read with 102 Cr.P.C . PW7 has deposed when examined before court that on coming to know that the vehicle which the petitioner was driving was the very same vehicle involved in crime No.152 of 2000 of Kalady Police Station, he transferred the records of Crime No. 152 of 2000 to the Kalady Police Station. If so, the arrest of the petitioner can only be treated as one in connection with the crime No.152/2000 of Kalady Police Station. The petitioner can therefore be said to have undergone the detention in the “same case” within the meaning of Section 428 Cr.P.C. Hence the Crl.R.P.No.2182 of 2008 3 petitioner will be entitled to set off pursuant to his arrest on 8.5.2000 in this case. The view taken by the courts below cannot therefore be sustained. The J.F.C.M, Perumbavoor shall calculate the detention period of set off available to the petitioner under Section 428 Cr.P.C treating his arrest on 8.5.2000 as one made in Crime No.152 of 2000 and communicate the same to the petitioner through the Jail Superintendent concerned. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above. Dated this the 11 th day of July, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj