Judgment :- 1. Petitioner has sent up this petition from jail where he is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for a period of seven years passed by the Sessions Court, Quilon, in S.C. 98/82 as per judgment dated 26-11-1983. He was involved in another case, the FIR of which was registered on 19-12-1985 as Crime No. 421/85 of the Quilon East Police Station. On completion of the investigation, the case was charge sheeted and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Quilon, after trial (as C.C.104/87), convicted him for the offences under S.447 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the first count and one year for the other count. 2. Petitioner now prays that set off may be allowed, as per S.428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the period he was under detention during the investigation and trial in C.C.104/87. 3. He claims the benefit of set off envisaged in S.428 of the Cr. P.C. in the light of the decision of this Court in Monian Pillai v. State (1986 K.L.T. 1370). If the interpretation of S.428 given in the said decision can be followed, no doubt, petitioner is entitled to the set off prayed for by him. But the difficulty in applying the principle in Monian Pillai's case is that when the said decision was rendered, the attention of the court was not drawn to the earlier Supreme Court decision in Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana (A.I.R. 1984 S.C.1796). In the said decision, the Supreme Court held as follows: "In order to secure the benefit of S.428, the prisoner should show that he had been detained in prison for the purpose of investigation, inquiry or trial of the case in which he is later on convicted and sentenced. It follows that if a person is undergoing the sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court of law on being convicted of an offence in one case during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial of some other case, he cannot claim that the period occupied by such investigation, inquiry or trial should be set off against the sentence of imprisonment to be imposed in the latter case even though he was under detention during such period. In such a case the period of detention is really a part of the period of imprisonment which he is undergoing having been sentenced earlier for another offence. It is not the period of detention undergone by him during the investigation, inquiry or trial of the same case in which he is later on convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment. Such a person cannot claim a double benefit under S.428 i.e., the same period being counted as part of the period of imprisonment imposed for committing the former offence and also being set off against the period of imprisonment imposed for committing the latter offence as well". In view of the said Supreme Court decision, Monian Pillai's case (1986 K.L.T. 1370) must be treated as wrongly decided. Crl. M.C. is accordingly dismissed.