Judgment : 1. This Petition coming on for orders on this day and upon hearing the arguments of S. Durai Raj, Advocate for the petitioner and of P. Rajendran, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) on behalf of the Respondents, the Court made the following order:- Heard both sides. 2. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Palayamkottai, has appeared in response to this Courts direction with the report. 3. The background facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this petition would run thus: This Court, earlier in Crl. O.P. No. 1955 of 2007 dated 2.4.2007 passed an order relating to this case. Paragraph No. 3 of the order is extracted as under: “The learned counsel for the petitioner would air the grievance of the petitioner to the effect that despite lapse of three years sentence, the petitioner herein Chellaiah is inside the jail and it is not in accordance with law, for which the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would state that if that be so, then he should be released, as the person, who already underwent the sentence. It is not readily known whether the petitioner herein, Chellaiah is liable to undergo default sentences also and that has to be verified by the jail authorities. If it is already expired, then it is incumbent upon them to release and said Chelliah, if the period of sentence had expired. In other words, if Chelliah had already served the sentence imposed on him in S.C.No. 55 of 1996 of Assistant Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, then he should be released if he is not required to be detained for any other case.” 4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite such direction having been given, the jail authorities have not released the petitioner from jail and that the three years period had long ago got expired. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Palayamkottai appeared and filed his report which is extracted hereunder for ready reference. Report filed by the 2nd respondent P.T. Date of entering Cr. No. Term of Date of warrant Suspension Stage received of the in sentence conviction by the jail of sentence case prison authorities 3 years for 207 I.P.C. order of Assistant No Sessions appeal 80/90 of Thoothukudi No pending suspension before 8.14.03 Kayatharconfirmed 6.26.03 6.9.05 by any the P.S. by the Additional Court Hon‘ble Sessions High Judge, Court Thoothukudi on 19.07.04. No. Term of Date of warrant Suspension Stage received of the in sentence conviction by the jail of sentence case prison authorities 3 years for 207 I.P.C. order of Assistant No Sessions appeal 80/90 of Thoothukudi No pending suspension before 8.14.03 Kayatharconfirmed 6.26.03 6.9.05 by any the P.S. by the Additional Court Hon‘ble Sessions High Judge, Court Thoothukudi on 19.07.04. Sentence 8.14.03 268/20 DD Kayathar P.S. Life 8/14/03 suspended by this Hon‘ble Court on Appeal pending before this 12.10.06 “It is submitted that as per the jail Manual Rule No.254, the conviction period would start from the date of the receipt of the P.T. Warrant issued by the Court concerned. Hence the petitioners warrant as far as the Cr. No. 80 of 1990 under Section 307 I.P.C. was received by the jail authorities only on 9.6.2005. Therefore the period of the sentence can be calculated only from the above said date.” 5. The gist and kernel of the contention of the jail authority is that three years period could be calculated only from the date of the committal warrant relating to the earlier case in S.C.No. 55 of 1996, for which he had to undergo three years substantive sentence for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and according to them, the necessary warrant from the Court was received only on 9.6.2005 and accordingly, the period if calculated, the three years period has not yet expired. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Assistant Sessions Judge, earlier convicted the accused on 26.6.2003 for undergoing totally a substantive sentence of three years imprisonment. It is just and necessary to point out that the fine amount was paid. There is no question of default sentence arises as admitted by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Palayamkottai. 7. The learned Superintendent of Central Prison, Palayamkottai, would also expound that even though the appellate Court (Sessions Court) relating to S.C. No. 55 of 1996, confirmed the conviction on 19.7.2004, no committal warrant was communicated to the jail. But, the Assistant Sessions Judge issued P.T. Warrant and secured the presence of the petitioner before him and thereafter, only on 9.6.2005, he issued the committal warrant. Indubitably and unarguably, incontrovertibly and admittedly, the fact remains that in the murder case in S.C.No.324, of 2001, the Sessions Court awarded life imprisonment on 14.8.2003 and ever since 14.8.2003, he has been in jail. 8. Indubitably and unarguably, incontrovertibly and admittedly, the fact remains that in the murder case in S.C.No.324, of 2001, the Sessions Court awarded life imprisonment on 14.8.2003 and ever since 14.8.2003, he has been in jail. 8. In the same Palayamkottai Jail, while he was undergoing such life sentence, the aforesaid P.T. Warrant was issued by the Assistant Sessions Judge after securing the presence before him, he issued the committal warrant relating to S.C.No. 55 of 1996 under Section 307 I.P.C. 9. It is also an undisputed fact that subsequently, the High Court suspended the sentence of life imprisonment on 29.9.2006 and bail was granted. But, still he could not go on bail, because in the earlier case, he has been undergoing the sentence of three years. It is therefore crystal clear now that had the Additional Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, on 9.7.2004 itself issued the committal warrant, then it would be deemed as per law that the petitioner has been undergoing such sentence of three years from that day onwards and by this time, three years period would have already got expired. Because of the Courts delay alone, the jail authorities were constrained to interpret that the sentence period has to be calculated only from 9.6.2005 that is to say from the date of receipt of committal warrant. In this connection Section 427 Cr.P.C. could rightly be referred to and the same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence.- ( 1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence: Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under Section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately. (2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.” 10. (2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.” 10. Strictly speaking from the above said facts, Section 427(1) is applicable in the factual circumstances of this case and as per which the earlier sentence which was only for three years imprisonment, after such confirmation by the appellate Court dated back to the earlier order of conviction by the Assistant Sessions Judge. Even though by virtue of subsequent life imprisonment imposed on him, he was undergoing imprisonment, no sooner the committal warrant in the earlier case S.C.No. 55 of 1996 was forwarded to the jail authorities the earlier sentence should be deemed to have taken effect and accordingly, it is deemed that as per the earlier conviction for three years, he was undergoing the sentence even with effect from 19.7.2004. Accordingly, if viewed, he should be released forthwith on the ground that he already underwent three years imprisonment. The Maxim “ Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit [An act of the Court shall prejudice no man.]” is applicable in this case, simply because the Assistant Sessions Judge or the Additional Sessions Judge failed to send the committal warrant to the Jail authorities ( sic), the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. 11. Hence, in this view of the matter, it is held that the petitioner/A.2 had already undergone the substantive sentence of imprisonment of three years relating to the conviction recorded and sentence imposed in S.C.No. 55 of 1996 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, dated 26.6.2003. The Superintendent, Central Prison Palayamkottai, who is present in the Court is directed to release the petitiner/A.2 forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.