ORAL ORDER (per the Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.S.R. Varma) Heard. 2. Three persons, including one Pedada Trinadhu (presently lodged in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, as Convict Prisoner No.543), were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., and for certain other offences, in Sessions Case No.129 of 1996, on his file. Pedada Trinadhu is A-1 in that case. 3. Now, in this application, we are concerned with A-1 (Pedada Trinadhu) only. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted A.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life, and also convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 450 I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years, however, with a direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 5. Aggrieved by the convictions and sentences imposed upon him by the Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, in S.C.No.129 of 1996, A-1 preferred Criminal Appeal No.1730 of 1999 along with one Garugubilli Suryanarayana (A.2). 6. A Division Bench comprising Justice Ramesh Madhav Bapat and one of us (Justice D.S.R.Varma) heard Criminal Appeal No.1730 of 1999 and ultimately dismissed the appeal of A.1 and confirmed the convictions and sentences imposed upon him by the Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. The appeal of A.2 was allowed and the convictions and sentences imposed upon him by the Additional Sessions Judge were set aside. 7. Now, A-1 (Pedada -Trinadhu), who is lodged in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, as Convict Prisoner No.543, appears to have made an application under Section 395 (2) Cr.P.C., through Jail, to give him the benefit of set-off, as provided under Section 428 Cr.P.C., of the period of detention already undergone by him during the period of investigation, inquiry and trial, as against the sentence Of imprisonment imposed upon him. 8, In his application, A.1 stated that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not give him the benefit of set-off under Section 428 Cr,P.C., while convicting and sentencing him, and inasmuch as the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge as against A.1 was confirmed by the High Court, he was constrained to make the present application under Section 395 (2) Cr.P.C. 9. So stating A.1 sent up the application, dated 17.8.2005, to the Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, through the Jailor, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam praying to refer the matter to the High Court. 10. So stating A.1 sent up the application, dated 17.8.2005, to the Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, through the Jailor, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam praying to refer the matter to the High Court. 10. In the aforesaid background, the learned Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, forwarded the application of A.1 made under Section 395 (2) Cr.P.C., together with its enclosures, for consideration and decision, with regard to giving him the benefit of set-off as ordained in Section 428 Cr.P.C. 11. The Registry of this Court numbered the letter of the District Judge, Srikakulam as CrI.A.M.P.No.558 of 2006, and, as per the directions of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, posted it before us today. 12. The only grievance of the convict (A.1) appears to be that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not give him the benefit of set-off, of the period of detention already undergone by him during the period of investigation, inquiry and trial, as against the sentence imposed upon him, as ordained in Section 428 Cr.P.C., and this Court also did not say anything on that aspect in its judgment in Criminal Appeal No.1730 of 1999, which was filed by him (A-1), along with A-2, against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 13. The short, rather interesting, point that arises for our consideration and decision is: “Whether the provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C., with regard to extending the benefit of set-off, are applicable to all types of sentences, or/and whether the applicability of Section 428 Cr.P.C., has got any exceptions?” 14. In order to decide the point involved, it is apposite to notice the provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C., which run thus: “Where an accused person has, on conviction, been sentenced to imprisonment for a term, (not being imprisonment in default 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”.(Underlining is ours. Emphasis added). 15. Emphasis added). 15. From the explicit and unambiguous language, advisedly employed by the Legislature, in Section 428 Cr.P.C., it is clear that the benefit of set-off can be given only in cases where a ‘definite’ or ‘fixed term’ of imprisonment is awarded to an accused person at the trial. 16. Recently, a two-judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MOHD. MUNNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA (1) upon surveying the case-law on the subject, had an occasion to rule that ‘life imprisonment’ is not equivalent to imprisonment for 14 years or 20 years and that ‘life imprisonment’ means imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convicted person’s natural life. 17. It was also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision (Mohd. Munna’s case) that there is no provision either in the Indian Penal Code or in the Criminal Procedure Code whereby ‘life imprisonment’ could be treated as 14 years or 20 years without there being a formal remission by the appropriate Government. 18. From the above decision, it is clear that ‘imprisonment for life’ does not mean that it is an imprisonment for a fixed or definite ‘term’. 19. Our task in answering the present point - whether a person sentenced to ‘imprisonment for life’ is entitled to set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C., or not - is made easy by the handy and erudite judgment rendered by a three-judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as long back as in the year 1982 in KARTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA (2). In that judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the benefit of set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C., is not available to a person sentenced to ‘imprisonment for life’, because ‘imprisonment for life’ is not an ‘imprisonment for a term’. Therefore, the issue involved herein is no longer ‘res integra’, and need not detain us any longer, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in KARTAR SINGH’S case (2 supra). It cannot be gainsaid that the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C., is not altogether unqualified; and that it is applicable only in cases where the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon an accused person is for a fixed or definite term. 20. Having regard to the provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C., and following the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. 20. Having regard to the provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C., and following the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. MUNNA’s case (1 supra) and KARTAR SINGH’s case (2 supra), Pedada Trinadhu, Accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.129 of 1996, on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam (Convict No.543 of Central Prison, Visakhapatnam), is not entitled to the benefit of set-off, as provided in Section 428 Cr.P.C., inasmuch as he was sentenced to undergo ‘imprisonment for life’, which is not an imprisonment for a fixed/definite ‘term’ of imprisonment. 21. Before parting with this matter, we would like to impress upon all the Sessions Judges in the State to note that the provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C., are not applicable to cases where an accused person is sentenced to ‘imprisonment for life’, and they should bear in mind this aspect while convicting an accused person to suffer imprisonment for life. 22. Ordered accordingly. The reference is answered in the above terms. --X—