Consistency, Certainty, Predictability: Supreme Court Seeks Reconsideration of Section 428 CrPC Interpretation
- Chintan Shah
- 1 day ago
- 4 min read
Summary of the Judgment
Case Names:
Criminal Appeal No. 1371 of 2025: The Superintendent of Prison & Anr. v. Venkatesan @ Senu @ Srinivasan @ Baskaran @ Radio @ Prakasam
Criminal Appeal No. 1372 of 2025: The Superintendent of Prison & Anr. v. Ravichandran @ Kalai @ Ravi
Date of Judgment: 22nd April 2025
Judges: Hon'ble Mr Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon'ble Mr Justice Manmohan
Advocates:
For Appellants: Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Senior Additional Advocate General
Acts and Sections Involved:
Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC)
Section 482 Cr. PC
Section 427 Cr. PC
Cited Judgements:
State of Maharashtra v. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali (2001) 6 SCC 311
Maliyakkal Abdul Azeez v. Collector (2003) 2 SCC 439
Atul Manubhai Parekh v. CBI (2010) 1 SCC 603
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Anne Venkatesware (1977) 3 SCC 298
Champalal Punaji Shah v. State of Maharashtra (1982) 1 SCC 507
Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana (1984) 4 SCC 348
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling delivered on 22nd April 2025, revisited the interpretation of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in the context of set-off of pre-conviction detention. The judgment, penned by Hon'ble Mr Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon'ble Mr Justice Manmohan, addressed critical ambiguities plaguing the criminal justice system, especially concerning repeat offenders and the concurrent running of sentences.
Background and Legal Issues
The appeals arose from orders of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which granted set-off of remand periods to the respondents, Venkatesan and Ravichandran, under Section 428, Cr. PC. The appellants, represented by Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, challenged the maintainability of the petitions under Section 482 Cr. PC and contended that the appropriate remedy lay in appeal under Section 374(2) Cr. PC.
Central to the dispute was the interpretation of the phrase "same case" in Section 428 Cr. PC — whether periods spent in custody under Prisoner Transit (PT) warrants related to different cases could be set-off against sentences awarded in subsequent convictions.
Key Findings of the Court
Hon'ble Mr Justice Dipankar Datta, speaking for the Bench, began with a stern reminder that "the High Court erred in law in entertaining the petition under Section 482 Cr. PC filed by Venkatesan," firmly asserting the procedural impropriety of bypassing the appellate remedy.
However, recognising the gravity of the substantive question concerning Section 428 Cr. PC, the Court chose not to rest its decision solely on procedural grounds.
A key observation of the Court was:
"Consistency, certainty, predictability and finality of judicial decisions are the hallmarks of a sound justice delivery system."
The Court meticulously examined earlier precedents, particularly the oft-cited decision in State of Maharashtra v. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali. It noted that while Najakat permitted a broader reading of "same case," the judgments therein were marked by conflicting interpretations among the learned Judges.
Conflict of Judicial Opinions: Najakat Case Revisited
The Court revisited the three opinions rendered in Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali:
Hon'ble Mr Justice K.T. Thomas broadly interpreted "same case" to allow set-off even when multiple cases were involved.
Hon'ble Mr Justice R.P. Sethi sharply dissented, insisting that set-off applies strictly to detention in the same case.
Hon'ble Mr Justice S.N. Phukan, though agreeing with Justice Thomas, penned an opinion which arguably aligned more closely with Justice Sethi.
This internal discord led the Bench to a startling conclusion:
"Faced with such a conundrum where the Hon'ble Judges have spoken in different voices, we attempted a reconciliation... however, it has proved abortive."
Preferred Interpretation and Future Course
Aligning with the later ruling in Atul Manubhai Parekh v. CBI, the Court unequivocally favoured a stricter construction of Section 428:
"The period to be set-off relates only to pre-conviction detention and not to imprisonment on conviction."
Further, the Court highlighted that allowing set-off for detention unrelated to the "same case" would defeat the legislative purpose and encourage abuse by habitual offenders.
In light of the irreconcilable interpretations in Najakat, the Bench exercised judicial prudence by referring the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger Bench:
"The irreconcilability of the views expressed in Najakat posits that the same be reconsidered for declaring the law without any room for confusion."
Thus, the decision charts the path for a more authoritative and consistent interpretation of Section 428 Cr. PC, safeguarding the coherence of criminal jurisprudence.
Impact and Significance
The ruling directly affects undertrial prisoners who seek set-off benefits for detention during concurrent trials. It places clear limits on the eligibility for set-off, reaffirming that set-off is restricted to detention in the same case as the eventual conviction. This judgment is particularly significant for lawyers practising criminal law, as it redefines strategic considerations in bail applications, sentencing arguments, and appeals.
It is noteworthy that while the Supreme Court stayed the benefit of set-off for Venkatesan and Ravichandran pending further clarification, it showed restraint by directing that if the respondents had already been released, they should not be re-incarcerated.
Conclusion
The decision in Superintendent of Prison v. Venkatesan and Ravichandran signals a decisive step toward reinforcing the principles of procedural propriety and statutory interpretation. While it brings immediate clarity, the final word on the matter awaits the authoritative pronouncement of a larger Bench.
In closing, one cannot but appreciate the Court's larger concern:
"The relevance and significance of the principle of stare decisis have to be borne in mind."
This judgment will undoubtedly serve as a critical touchstone for future interpretations of Section 428 Cr. PC and the broader framework of criminal sentencing in India.
Comments