ORDER Shacheendra Dwivedi, J. 1. This petition raises an important question as to the implication and application of Sections 427 and 428 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The petitioner, a surrendered dacoit and a convict, presently undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life, surrendered to custody before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morena on 27-10-1984 and the first conviction of 3 years' R.I. came on him on 15-12-1986 in Special Case No. 176/84 passed by Special Court, Sabalgarh. 3. The petitioner in that case was allowed the benefit of "set-off' under Section 428, Criminal Procedure Code for the period of preconviction detention commencing from the date 27-10-1984 of his surrender to custody to the date of his first conviction i.e., 15-12-1986. In that case, giving him the further benefit of remission, in the sentence of 3 years R.I., the petitioner was released on 8-9-1987, but was detained in the other pending cases under production warrants. 4. The second conviction of 7 years' R.I. came on him on 18-11-1987. Thereafter, while the petitioner was undergoing the sentence of 7 years' R.I. he was further convicted in four more cases to 7 years' R.I. in one case to 5 years R.I. and in two cases to imprisonment for life. The sentence of imprisonment for life was first passed on 11-4-1989 and the subsequent on 22-2-1990. 5. The petitioner contends that the sentence of imprisonment for life has to run concurrently with the other previous sentences as provided under Section 427(2) of Criminal Procedure Code and at the same time he further claims that he is entitled to the "set-off for the period from 27-10-1984, the date of his surrender to custody up to 11-4-1989 when he was first sentenced to imprisonment for life contending that this period was spent in custody, before the actual conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life on 11-4-1989. Under the provisions of Section 428, Criminal Procedure Code, the period deserves to be included by way of set-off in the period of his sentence of imprisonment for life. 6. Under the provisions of Section 428, Criminal Procedure Code, the period deserves to be included by way of set-off in the period of his sentence of imprisonment for life. 6. The question, therefore firstly is whether the petitioner once having been given the benefit of "set-off" under Section 428, Criminal Procedure Code on his first conviction is still entitled to claim the set-off for the same period in other cases on a subsequent conviction, having been sentenced to imprisonment and secondly whether the subsequent sentence would run concurrently with the previous sentence. 7. In so far as, the first contention of the petitioner is concerned, it would be relevant to refer and to re-produce Section 428 : -- "Section 428. 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 remainder, if any, of the term of imprisonment imposed on him." 8. In view of the provisions of the section it is apparent that the provision is absolute in its terms. It provides for the set-off, the pre-conviction detention of an accused person against the term of imprisonment imposed on him after conviction. The section further makes it clear that the period of detention allowed to be set-off against the term of imprisonment imposed on conviction of an accused must be spent by him during the investigation, inquiry or trial in relation to the "Same Case", in which he has been so convicted. It cannot be utilized in "another case" on a subsequent conviction. 9. Once an accused is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, his pre-conviction period ends and his custody thereafter has to be taken as the sentence undergone towards the awarded sentence. On being sentenced subsequently in any other case, while undergoing the previous sentence, the principle of set-off, would not be applicable. 9. Once an accused is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, his pre-conviction period ends and his custody thereafter has to be taken as the sentence undergone towards the awarded sentence. On being sentenced subsequently in any other case, while undergoing the previous sentence, the principle of set-off, would not be applicable. The period of subsequent sentence would commence after the previous sentence has been undergone, unless it is directed by the Court, that the subsequent sentence would run concurrently with the previous sentence, as provided under Section 427, Criminal Procedure Code. 10. As such, the benefit of set-off can only be taken once in the case, during the pendency of which, the accused remained in custody, when the first order of conviction and sentence came on him. After he is sentenced to imprisonment, the period spent in custody would be the period of his undergoing the sentence of imprisonment. The section only provides for a "set-off" of the pre-detention period. It does not equate an under-trial detention with imprisonment on conviction. 11. Section 428 is a new provision introduced in the Code (1973), keeping in view the fact of detention of many under-trial prisoners for pretty long periods at the pre-conviction stage. At times, such period even exceeded the term of imprisonment which could be imposed on them for the offence on their conviction. Dealing with a similar situation, their Lordships of Supreme Court in Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1984 SC 1796 , found that Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code :-- "provides for the setting off of the period of detention as an under-trial prisoner against the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him. Hence in order to secure the benefit of Section 428 of the Code, 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. He cannot claim a double benefit under Section 428 of the Code 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." 12. Shri Suresh Gupta, Advocate, appearing as amicus curiae has placed implicit reliance on Bhagirath v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1985 SC 1050 to contend that the benefit of set off is available also to an accused who has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. The argument is wholly misplaced. There is no controversy in the given case as to the granting of the benefit of set off to the accused on being sentenced to imprisonment for life, but the dispute is whether the once availed benefit of set off can again be claimed on a subsequent sentence in another case. Therefore, the above authority is of no avail to the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to claim the double benefit. The contention therefore has to be rejected. 13. Now the surviving contention is with regard to the subsequent sentences running concurrently with the previous sentence. Section 427, Criminal Procedure Code provides that when an accused is sentenced to imprisonment, while he is already undergoing sentence of imprisonment, the subsequent sentence of imprisonment would commence after the previous sentence has been undergone, unless it is directed by the Court that the subsequent sentence would run concurrently with the previous sentence. In this regard, an order has already been passed by this Court on 23-10-1990 in M.P. No. 1879/90 filed by the petitioner earlier and therefore no further consideration or order is any more required in this petition. 14. For the foregoing reasons, we find no substance in the petition and it is therefore dismissed.