V. D. GYANI, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under S. 482, Cr. P. C. the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the effect that the Addl. Sessions Judge, Shajapur, be directed not to send the petitioner to jail as he has already undergone more than six months' imprisonment as an under-trial prisoner. The petitioner has also made an application for interim relief, praying for stay of the order dated 4-7-1987, passed by the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Shajapur. It was in view of this interim prayer that we thought it proper to hear the petition and requested the learned Government Advocate to take notice, to which he readily agreed. Shri Jaisingh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Surjeetsingh, learned , Government Advocate for the State respondent are heard. ( 2 ) SHORT facts are that the petitioner Mamoodkhan was convicted by the trial Court for offences punishable under Ss. 147, 302/149, 326/149, 324/149 and S. 323,i. P. C. The petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court, being Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 1984, which was decided on 4-3-1987 whereby the petitioner was acquitted of all the charges but his conviction and sentence under S. 323, I. P. C. as awarded by the trial Court - six months, rigorous imprisonment was maintained. While passing the judgment this Court directed that if the petitioner was on bail, he shall surrender to the bail-bonds in order to under go the term of imprisonment. ( 3 ) THE petitioner moved the trial Court, praying that as he had already remained in custody for 200 days, the same period should be adjusted towards the imprisonment as awarded by the trial Court, and maintained by the High Court in appeal. The trial Court, placing reliance on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Suprovat Bose v. State, 1976 Crilj 313, dismissed the application holding that the relief under S. 428, Cr. P. C. is neither consequential nor incidental to the appellate judgment. The trial Court was of the view that it had no power to grant such a relief. ( 4 ) SHRI Jaisingh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the trial Court was wrong in not extending the benefit of S. 428, Cr. P. C. to the present petitioner. The trial Court was of the view that it had no power to grant such a relief. ( 4 ) SHRI Jaisingh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the trial Court was wrong in not extending the benefit of S. 428, Cr. P. C. to the present petitioner. The Supreme Court in a very recent decision in Mer Dhana Sids v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1985 SC 386 : (1985 Cri LJ 660) has held that where a convict was still serving the sentence on the date when the new Code of Criminal Procedure came into force, irrespective of the fact whether the order of conviction was made prior to the new Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973, S. 428, Cr. P. C. would apply and the convict would be entitled to claim that period of detention undergone by him during investigation or trial, should be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him and he should be required to undergo only the remainder of the term. Similar view has also been expressed by the Supreme Court in Suraj Bhan v. Omprakash, AIR 1976 SC 648 : (1976 Cri LJ 577 ). Thus, this beneficial provision has been given retrospective effect and operation by the Supreme Court. The provision of S. 428, Cr. P. C. was introduced with the object of remedying the unsatisfactory state of affairs that was prevailing when the old Code of Criminal Procedure was in force. It was found that many persons were being detained in prison at the pre-conviction stage for unduly long periods, at times for periods longer than the actual sentence of imprisonment that could be imposed on them on conviction. In order to remedy the above situation, Section 428, Cr. P. C. of the present Code was enacted. It provides for setting off of the period of detention as an under-trial prisoner against the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him. See Raghubirsingh v. State of Haryana, 1984 (2) Crimes 569 : ( AIR 1984 SC 1796 ). ( 5 ) THE facts are not in dispute in this petition. In view of the foregoing discussion, keeping in mind the object and scope of S. 428, Cr. P. C. , this petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. ( 5 ) THE facts are not in dispute in this petition. In view of the foregoing discussion, keeping in mind the object and scope of S. 428, Cr. P. C. , this petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. As the petitioner was already in prison for a period of 200 days during investigation and trial of the case and the term of imprisonment, as imposed is only six months, it must be held that the petitioner has already undergone the term of imprisonment, as imposed by the trial Court and affirmed by this Court on appeal. The petitioner need not now surrender to his bail bonds. Thus, this petition stands allowed. C. C. today. Petition allowed. .