M. S. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a Miscellaneous Application mode under Section 428 of the Code of criminal Procedure with a prayer to make appropriate orders to allow set off the period of detention against the term of imonsonment imposed while confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge. ( 2 ) THE applicant Mukundan, Convict no. 3039, undergoing life imprisonment in Central Prison at Trivendrum, and another Ravi alias Ravindran were tried together by Sessions Judge, Dakshina kannada, Mangalore, on the charge of the offences punishable under ss. 302 and 201 R/w 34 IPC and found guilty, convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for three years respectively thereon with a further direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The appeal filed by them came to be dismissed confirming the order of conviction and sentences passed on them by this Court on 17/l8th July, 1978. 1 here being on direction to set off the period of detention against the term of imprisonment imposed on such conviction, the applicant, who is accused no. 2 in the said case, has made this application through the Superintendent, central Prison, Trivendrum. Although there had been some controversy whether the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed on conviction is or is not sentence for a term, but that controversy has now been set at rest by the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of bhagirath and Rakesh Kaushik v Delhi administration reported in A. I. R. 1985 s C. Page 1050 and it has been pointed out:-". . . . . . . . THE assumption that the word 'term' implies a concept of ascertainebility or conveys a sense of certainty is contrary to the letter of the law, as we find it in that section- Even the marginal note to the section does not bear out that assumption. It rather belies it. And, marginal notes are now legislative and not editorial exercises. The marginal note of S. 428 shows that the object of the Legislature in enacting the particular provision was to provide that 'the period of detention undergone by the accused' should 'be set off against the sentence of imprisonment' imposed upon him. It rather belies it. And, marginal notes are now legislative and not editorial exercises. The marginal note of S. 428 shows that the object of the Legislature in enacting the particular provision was to provide that 'the period of detention undergone by the accused' should 'be set off against the sentence of imprisonment' imposed upon him. There are no words of limitation either in the section or in its mariginal note which would justify restricting the plain and natural meaning of the word 'term' so as to comprehend only sentences which are imposed for a fixed or ascerlainable period. Proceeding further their Lordships also pointed out :- to say that a sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon an accused is a sentence for the term or his life does offence neither to grammar nor to the common understanding of the word 'term'. To say otherwise would offend not only against the language of the statute but against the spirit of the law, that is to say, the object with which the law was passed. A large number of cases in which the accused suffer long undertrial detentions are cases punishable with imprisonment for life. Usually, those who are liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for life are not enlarged on bail. To deny the benefit of S. 428 to them is to withdraw the application of a benevolent provision from a large majority of cases in which such benefit would be needed and justified. "the trial of the case and conviction being after the coming into force of the act, the accused by virtue of mandate contained in Section 428 of Cr. P. C. is entitled to the benefit of set off. It appears, whether there is any such order made by the Court directing to give set-off of the period of detention against the term of imprisonment or not, by virtue of the provisions of Section 428 of Cr. P. C. such set off may be given to the accused sentenced to imprisonment which also includes the imprisonment for life. However, it appears, that there is also no bar for making such an application by the accused undergoing imprisonment. As pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Bhan v Om Prakash and another ( AIR 1976 SC 648 ), the provisions of sec. 428 Cr. However, it appears, that there is also no bar for making such an application by the accused undergoing imprisonment. As pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Bhan v Om Prakash and another ( AIR 1976 SC 648 ), the provisions of sec. 428 Cr. P. C. could be invoked by the accused in a miscellaneous application made to the Court at any time while the sentence runs, for passing an appropriate order allowing set off of the period of detention against the term of imprisonment, which is the mandate of the section. ( 3 ) WE, therefore, allow the application. Although the other accused has not made any such application, in the interest of justice, we feel that this benefit also be extended to the other accused Ravi alias Ravindran and make the following :"the period of detention undergone by the two accused during investigation, inquiry or trial before the date of conviction shall be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on them. "application Allowed. --- *** --- .