ORDER The petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court underSec.482, Criminal Procedure Code praying set off, of the pre-trial detention, to which he claims to be entitled under Sec.428, Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Here are a few facts which will be necessary to dispose of this petition. In respect of Crime Numbers 5569 and 5691 of 1987, the petitioner was prosecuted in C.C.Nos. 117 of 1988 (offences under Secs.341 and 323, I.P.C.) and 1172 of 1988 (offences under Secs.323, 336, 427 and 506(2), I.P.C.) on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months in each case, judgments having been pronounced on the same day, viz. 27.9.1988. The petitioner was arrested on 5.12.1987 in respect of both the crimes and remanded either on 5.12.1987 or 6.12.1987, regarding which date there is a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, which however could be solved by a perusal of the original remand order. 3. When the petitioner was in remand an order of preventive detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14of 1982 was clamped on him in respect of Crime No.5691 of 1987 on 12.12.1987 and a warrant therefor was sent to the jail on 13.12.1987. Though the detention period of one year is over, still the petitioner had not been freed since the respondent had refused to lake into consideration the period of undertrial detention, although the period from 27.9.1988 till 12.12.1988 (the date of conviction and the expiry of the period of preventive detention) was acceded to as enuring in favour of the petitioner. 4. I have heard SriR.Sankarasubbu, appearing for the petitioner and Mr.G.R.Edmund, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent. Let me now determine if the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of remission, contemplated under Sec.428, Criminal Procedure Code. 4. I have heard SriR.Sankarasubbu, appearing for the petitioner and Mr.G.R.Edmund, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent. Let me now determine if the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of remission, contemplated under Sec.428, Criminal Procedure Code. Sec.428, Criminal Procedure Code runs thus: “Period of detention undergone by the accused to be set off against the sentence of imprisonment - where an accused person has, on conviction, been sentenced to imprisonment for a term, not being imprisonment in default of payment of fine, the period of detention, 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 imprisonment imposed on him on such conviction, and the liability of such person to undergo imprisonment on such conviction shall be restricted to the reminder, if any, of the term of imprisonment imposed on him.” It is patent from a reading of this section that an accused convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a term (not the default sentence) shall be entitled to claim set off of the period of detention undergone by him during investigation, inquiry or trial of the same case, before the date of such conviction. On the facts of this case there is no doubt that from 5.12.1987, the date of his conviction, he was in jail. The determination is now restricted to the effect of the order of preventive detention promulgated on 12.12.1987, when the petitioner was in jail, to his right of permission under Sec.428, Criminal Procedure Code. 5. The Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh and another v. Anne Venkateswara Government of Andhra Pradesh and another v. Anne Venkateswara 1977 S.C.C. (Crl.) 220: 1977 Crl.L.J. 716: A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1095 after referring to Hardedhan Saha and another v. The State of West Bengal and others Hardedhan Saha and another v. The State of West Bengal and others (1975)1 S.C.R. 778 has observed: “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 detention law, when a criminal proceeding for the offences on which the pre-ventive detention is based is pending. If that be so, there can be no bar to the preventive and punitive detention continuing simultaneously.” In Champalal Poonjali Shah v. State of Maharashtra Champalal Poonjali Shah v. State of Maharashtra 1982 MLJ. (Crl.) 314: (1982)1 S.C.C. 507 : (1982)1 S.C.J. 200.A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 791 the Supreme Court has observed: “It is only in circumstances where the prisoner would have unquestionably been in detention in connection with a criminal case, if he had not been preventively detained, his preventive detention might be reckoned as detention as an undertrial prisoner or detention pursuant to conviction, for the purpose of Sec.428, Criminal Procedure Code”. The observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Chinnasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu Chinnasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu 1983 L.W. (Crl.) 115 may also be relevant though a directly identical question was not the subject matter of consideration. Natarajan, J. (as he then was), speaking for the Bench has observed: “It is now well settled that an accused can undergo pretrial detention in more than one case at the same time and likewise, there is also no bar to preventive and pretrial detention as well as preventive and punitive detention running simultaneously.” On the facts unfurled in this case the petitioner had been remanded to jail even on 5/6.12.1987, a few days prior to the clamping of the preventive detention, on 12.12.1987. If the order of preventive detention had not been made, and the petitioner had not been bailed out as in this case unquestionably he would have undergone detention during investigation, inquiry or trial of the case, and hence he would be entitled to a remission or set off as claimed for the period commencing 5/6.12.1987, the date of his arrest/remand till 27.9.1988, the date of judgment in the calendar cases. The petitioner shall be released forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in respect of any other case. This petition is allowed. B.S. ----- Petition allowed.