Summarize the following court judgment. : Criminal Appeals Nos. 418 419 and 484 485/76. (From the Judgment and Order dated 6 7 1976 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 1865	 1870 of 1976 respectively.) P. Parmeswara Rao	 G. Narayana Rao and A. K. Ganguli	 for the appellants in Crl. Appeals Nos. 418 419/76 and respondents in Crl. Appeals Nos. 484 485/76. R.K. Jain	 fox the appellant in Crl. A. No. 484/76 and respondent in Crl. A. No. 418/76. section Lakshminarasu	 for the appellant in Crl. A. No. 485/76 and for respondent in Crl. A. No. 419/76. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GUPTA	 J. These are a group of four appeals from a common Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court partly allowing two writ petitions	 writ petition No. 1865 of 1976 filed by A.V. Rao	 and writ petition No. 1870 of 1976 made by N.V. Krishnaiah. The High Court rejected the petition ers ' prayer for setting off under section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure	 1973 the periods during which they were in preventive detention against the term of imprisonment imposed on them on their conviction in a sessions trial	 but accepted their contention that they were entitled to the benefit of the remission system under the for the period during which they were in jail as under trial prisoners before their conviction: Criminal Ap peals Nos. 418 and 419 of 1976 by State of Andhra Pradesh are directed against the part of the High Court 's Judgment granting the writ petitioners the benefit of the remission system under the treating for this purpose the period of undertrial detention on the 'same footing as a term of imprisonment on conviction. Appeal No. 418 arises out of writ petition No. 1865 of 1976 filed by A.V. Rao and Appeal No. 419 is from writ petition No. 1870 of 1976 made by N.V. Krishnaiah. The writ petitioners have also filed appeals against the part of the. Judgment disallowing their prayer for set off under section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Criminal Appeals Nos. 484 and 485 of 1976 are by A.V. Rao and N.V. Krishnaiah respectively. All the four appeals are on certificate of fitness granted by the High Court. The relevant facts are as follows. A.V. Rao	 appel lant in appeal 484 of 1976 and respondent in appeal 418 of 1976	 was in detention under the Preventive Detention Act when on December 18	 1969 a first information report was filed naming him among others as an accused in a case involving offences under section 121A and 120B read with section 395	 and section 120B read with section 447 of the Indian Penal Code	 'which gave rise to sessions cases Nos. 106 of 1970 and 6 of 1971 on the of the Additional Sessions Judge	 Hyderabad. The detention order under 9 the preventive detention law was revoked by the State Gov ernment on April 11	 1970 and Rao was released on the next day	 April 12. He was then produced before the magistrate in connection with the sessions cases on April 13	 1970; there is some doubt about this date because the record at some places mentions the date as April 18	 but the discrepancy is not of any significance on the questions arising for decision in these appeals. On April 10	 1972 Rao. was convicted along with others and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment for the offences charged against him; the maximum sentence was rigorous imprisonment for four years. The sentences were directed to run con currently. His appeal against the order of conviction was. dismissed by the High Court on November 28	 1975. He filed writ petition 1865 of 1976 asking for an order on the Government of Andhra Pradesh to set off under section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure	 1973 the time between December 19	 1969 and April 13	 1970 against his term of imprisonment treating the said period as the period of detention undergone by him as undertrial prisoner	 and to take into account the entire period during which he was in detention for the purpose of remission of his sentence under the . The petitioner further claimed that had he been free at the time when the F.I.R. was lodged on Decem ber 18	 1969	 he would have surrendered immediately and would have been produced before the court for remand on the next day as some of the co accused in the case had been it was submitted that if the "concerned authority" who could but did not "take immediate and necessary steps to produce the petitioner" before the magistrate	 the petition er should not be made to suffer. The facts of N.V. Krishnaiah"s case are similar. Krish naiah	 appellant in appeal No. 485 and respondent in appeal No. 419	 was also an accused in the sessions cases 106 of 1970 and 6 of 1971 with A.V. Rao and others. lie however was not in detention when the F.I.R. was lodged. He was arrested in connection with the sessions cases on December 19	 1969 and was in detention on remand from December 21	 1969 to April 9	 1972. He was also convicted by the Addi tional Sessions Judge on April 10	 1972 and the maximum sentence in his case too was rigorous imprisonment for four years. He also preferred an appeal to the High Court against the order of conviction. The High Court granted him bail and he was released on bail on April 29	 1972. He was arrested under the on June 26	 1975. The High Court dismissed the appeal on November 28	 1975. A warrant of arrest issued by the Additional 'Sessions Judge on December 1	 1975 was served on him on December 30	 1975	 on which date the detention order under the was also revoked. On these Krishnaiah in his writ petition sought an order on the State of Andhra Pradesh to treat the "period from June 26 1975 to November 28	 1975 as remand period" and to set off under section 428 of the Code of Criminal Proce dure this period during which he was under preventive deten tion	 against the term of imprisonment imposed on him on conviction in the sessions cases. It was also contended that the warrant issued by the Additional Sessions judge on December 1	 1975 should have been served on him immediately	 10 that it was no fault of his that "the concerned authority" chose to serve the warrant on December 30	 1975	 and that during this period of one month he should be deemed to have been serving the sentence imposed on him. 	 A further prayer was made that the entire period during which he was under detention be taken into account for remission of his sentence under the 	 The question for consideration in appeals 418 and 419 of 1976	 preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh is	 whether the period of detention undergone by the two writ petition ers in connection with the sessions cases before their conviction could be treated as a part of the period of imprisonment on conviction so as to entitle them to remis sion of their sentences under the . The 	 as its preamble shows. 	 is an Act to "amend the law relating to prisons" and to provide rules for the regula tion of such prisons Section 3(5) of the Act defines "remission system" as the "rules for the time being in force regulating the award of marks to	 and the consequent short ening of sentences of	 prisoners in jail". Section 59 of the provides that the State Government may make rules consistent with the Act in respect of the various matters specified in clauses (1) to (28) of the section; under clause (5) of section 59 the State Government is authorised to make rules "for the award of marks and the shortening of sentences". In their writ petitions both the petitioners speak of remission under the "prison rules" without specifying any rule under which relief is sought. The High Court viewed the question in this way: Sec. 428 Crl. P.C. clearly ordains that the remand detention shall be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on the accused person on conviction. The section further clarifies that the liability of such person to undergo	 imprisonment on such conviction shall be restricted to the remainder	 if any	 of the term of imprisonment imposed on him. In other words	 the statute equates the under trial detention or remand detention with imprison ment on conviction. The provision	 in so many words	 treats the remand ' detention as part of the period of imprisonment after conviction. If remissions are given for imprisonment after conviction	 there is no plausible or understandable reason. 	 why it should be denied to the remand period when the statute equates both of them." The High Court accordingly held that all the remissions that are available or permissible to the two petitioners in regard to imprison ment on conviction are available to them oven in respect of the remand period and directed the authorities "to work out these remis sion and give the benefit to the petitioners". We do not consider the view taken by the High Court on this point as correct. Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 is in these terms: Period of detention undergone by the accused to be set off against the sentence of imprisonment. "428. Where an accused person has	 on conviction	 been sentenced to imprisonment for a term	 the period of deten 11 tion	 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 imprison ment imposed on him on such conviction	 and the liability of such person to undergo im prisonment on such conviction shall be re stricted to the remainder	 if any	 of the term of imprisonment imposed on him." Section 428 provides that the period of detention of an accused as an undertrial prisoner shall be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him on conviction. The section only provides for a "set off"	 it does not equate an "undertrial detention or remand detention with imprisonment on conviction". The provision as to set off expresses a legislative policy	 this does not mean that it does away with the difference in the two kinds of detention and puts them on the same footing for all purposes. The basis of the High Court 's decision does not	 therefore	 seem to be right. Apart from that	 the does not confer any right upon the prisoner to claim remission. It was pointed out in G.V. Godse vs State of Maharashtra(1) that" . the does not confer on any authority a power to commute or remit sentences	 it provides only for the regula tion of prisons and for the treatment of prisoners confined therein. Section 59 of the confers a power on the State Government to make rules	 inter alia	 for rewards for good conduct. Therefore	 the rules made under the Act should be construed within the scope of the ambit of the Act. " It was explained that the rules under the do not substitute a lesser sentence for a sentence awarded by the court. The rules enable a prisoner to earn remis sions but	 as held in G.V. Godse 's case	 the question of remission is exclusively within the province of the appro priate Government. If the Government decides to remit the punishment to which a person has been sentenced	 the remis sion may be worked out according .to the rules framed under the . This being the position	 appeals 418 and 419 of 1976 must succeed. The remaining two appeals	 4.84 and 485 of 1976	 preferred respectively by Rao and Krishnaiah	 may now be taken up for consideration. The claim in both these appeals is that the period of detention undergone by each appellant under the preventive detention law should be set off under section 428 of the Code Criminal Procedure against the term of imprison ment imposed on them on their conviction in the aforesaid sessions cases. The argument is that the 'expression "period of detention" in section 428 includes detention under the Preventive Detention Act or the . It is true. that the section speaks of the "period of detention" undergone by an accused person	 but it expressly says that the detention mentioned refers to the detention during the investigation	 enquiry or trial of the case in which the accused person has been convicted. The section makes it clear that the period of detention which it allows to be set off against the term of imprison ment (1) ; 	 446. 12 imposed on the accused on conviction must be during the investigation	 enquiry or trial in connection with the "same ease" in which he has been convicted. We therefore agree with the High Court that the period during which the writ petitioners were in preventive detention cannot be set off under section 428 against the term of imprisonment imposed on them. There is however substance in the other point raised by the writ petitioners regarding the computation of the period during which the writ petitioner in each ease should be held to have suffered imprisonment on conviction. In A.V. Rao 's case (W.P. 1865/76)	 he was already in detention under the 2Preventive Detention Act when the First Information Report was lodged on December 18	 1969 in connection with the sessions eases. Some of the co accused in these cases were arrested and produced before the magistrate for remand on December 19	 1969	 but Rao was produced before the magis trate sometime in April	 1970 after he was released from preventive detention. It was argued that he also could have been produced before the magistrate for remand on December 19	 1970. On behalf of the respondent	 State of Andhra Pradesh	 it was contended that as ' Rao was already in deten tion under the Preventive Detention Act	 it was not possible to produce him before the magistrate for remand until the period of preventive detention was over	 we do not find any justification in law for the position taken up by the State. Rao being already in custody	 the authorities could have easily produced him before the magistrate when the First Information Report was lodged. Nothing has been pointed out to us either in the preventive detention law or the Code of Criminal Procedure which can be said to be a bar to such a course. That being so we think that the claim that the entire period from December 19	 .1969	 when many of the co accused were produced before the magistrate to April 18	 1970 should be treated as part of the period during which Rao was under detention as an under trial prisoner	 must be accepted as valid. A.V. Rao 's Appeal No. 484 of 1976 is allowed to this extent. In the case of N.V. Krishnaiah	 the Additional Sessions Judge	 Hyderabad	 issued a warrant on December 1	 1975 after his appeal against conviction was dismissed by the High Court on November 28	 1975. The warrant	 however	 was. served on him only on December 30	 1975 on which date the order under maintenance of Internal Security Act was revoked. It is claimed ' that the warrant could have been served immediately on that dismissal Of the appeal on November 28	 1975 and the accused was not responsible if the authority concerned chose to serve the warrant on him on December 30	 1975. In this case also	 the argument on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh is that it was not possible to forward Krishnaiah to jail consequent on his conviction in the session cases until the period of his detention under the was over. We do not see why that should be so. Section 418 requires the court passing the sentence .to forthwith for ward a warrant to the jail or other place in which he (accused) is	 or is to be	 confined	 and	 unless the 	ac cused is already confined in such jail or other 13 place	 shall forward him to such jail or other place	 with the warrant". Section 418 thus does not exclude a case where the warrant concerns an accused who is already in detention On behalf of the State it was sought to be argued that if the warrant was served on Krishnaiah immediately after his conviction was upheld by the High Court in appeal	 the position would have been anomalous	 because then he would have been in detention both under the preventive detention law and as a convicted accused in a criminal case. We have not been referred to any provision either in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in the Maintenance of Internal Securi ty Act which requires the service of the warrant to be delayed until after the period of preventive detention is over. As regards the alleged anomaly of a man having to suffer two kinds of detention at the same time	 one preven tive and the other punitive	 we do not find this to be a valid objection. The position is not different from the case where a man is sentenced on different counts to a term of rigorous imprisonment and another term of simple impris onment	 and the sentences are directed to run concurrently. Counsel for the State referred us to the decision in Harad han Saha and another vs The State of West Bengal & others	(1) in support of his contention. In our opinion this case does not help him at all. What was held in this case was	 inter alia that the nature of preventive detention is entirely different from punitive detention	 and there is no bar to a man being detained under the preventive deten tion law when a criminal proceeding for the offences on which the preventive detention is based is pending. If that be so	 there can be no bar to the preventive and punitive detentions continuing simultaneously. We therefore allow appeal No. 485 of 1976 to the extent that Krishnaiah should be taken to have serving the sentence imposed on him from December 1	 1975. In the result the criminal appeals Nos. 418 and 419 of 1976 by the State of Andhra Pradesh are allowed	 and the appeals Nos. 484 and 485 of 1976 preferred respectively by A.V. Rao and N.V. Krishnaiah are allowed to the extent indicated above. M.R. Appeals al lowed.

The cross appeals arose from two writ petitions filed by A.V. Rao and N. V. Krishnaiah in the High Court. A.V. Rao 's case was that while he was already in preventive detention. on December 18. a First Information Report was lodged against him in connection with some Sessions cases. Some of the co accused in ' these cases were produced before the Magistrate on December 19	 1969 for remand	 but Rao was produced before him only in mid April	 1970 after his release from preventive detention. The accused in the Sessions cases were thereafter convicted and sentenced	 and Rao. filed a writ petition asking for an order on the State Government to set off u/s 	 the time between December 19	 1969 and April 13	 1970	 against his term of imprisonment	 treating the said period as the period of detention undergone by him as an undertrial prisoner	 and also to take the same into account	 for the purpose of remission of his sentence under the Prisons Act. Rao con tended that he could have been produced before the Magistrate for remand on December 19	 1969. The State Government contended that Rao could not be produced before the Magistrate for remand until the period of preventive detention was over. In the case of Krishnaiah	 he was in detention under the MISA	 when his appeal against conviction in a criminal case was dismissed by the High Court	 and a warrant was issued against him on December 1	 1975	 but was served on him only on December 30	 1975	 when the order against him under the MISA was revoked. The High Court rejected the petitioners ' contention regarding set off under section 428 Cr. P.C. but accepted their contention regarding the benefit of remission. Allowing the appeals by the State	 and partly allowing the appeals by the original writ petitioners	 the Court	 HELD: (1) Section 428 of the Cr. P.C.	 1973 only pro vides that the period of detention of an accused as under trial prisoner shall be set off against the term of impris onment imposed on him on conviction. It does not equate an "undertrial detention or remand detention with imprisonment on conviction" or do away with the difference in the two kinds of detention and put them on the .same footing for all purposes. [11B C] G.V. Godse vs State of Maharashtra	 ; ; 446	 referred to. (2) section 428 expressly says that the "period of detention" mentioned	 refers to the detention during the investigation	 enquiry or trial in connection with the "same case" in which the accused person has been convicted. The period during which the writ petitioners were in preventive detention cannot be set off under section 428 against the term of imprisonment imposed on them. [11G	 12 A B] (3) Section 418 does not exclude a case where the war rant concerns an accused who is already in detention. We have not been referred to any provision either in the Cr. P.C. or in the MISA which requires the service of the war rant to be delayed until after the period of preventive detention is over. There is no bar to the preventive and punitive detention continuing simultaneously. [13A B	 C] 2 240SCI/77 8 Haradhan Saha & Anr. vs State of West Bengal & Ors. ; 	 referred to.