M.Sathyanarayanan, J:- This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for appropriate direction to the respondents to set off the period of detention undergone by the petitioner’s brother Fakrudeen @ Police Fakrudeen, S/o. Sikkander Basha, from 26.07.2007 to 14.02.2008 against the sentence and conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC III) Madurai in S.C. No.342 of 2002. 2. The detenu is now undergoing the imprisonment at Central Prison, Trichy. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of this petition , it has been stated that the detenu was arrested in the year 2002 by the Special Investigating Team of C.B.C.I.D – S.I.T for the commission of the offences under Sections 120 (B), 148, 149, 212, 214, 225, 307, 333, 342, 353, 395, 397 and 506 (ii) I.P.C and Section 25(1-A) and Section 25(1-B) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 4(a) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 3 of the TNPPD Act, along with twenty one other accused. 4. After investigation, the C.B.C.I.D – S.I.T filed the charge sheet which was taken on file in S.C.No.342 of 2002 and it was transferred to the file of Fast Track Court No.III, Madurai. 5. The trial court after full-fledged trial, had convicted the detenu along with other accused vide its judgment dated 10.01.2007 and imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 6. Challenging the vires of the conviction and sentence passed by the court of Fast Track Court No.III, Madurai, the detenu preferred an appeal in Crl.A (MD) No.68 of 2007 before this Court and also obtained the order of suspension of sentence in M.P (MD) No.1 of 2007 in Crl.A (MD) No.68 of 2007 dated 16.03.2007. 7. It is stated in the affidavit that when the detenu was a under trial prisoner, he was implicated in one more case in Cr.No.820 of 2002 on the file of Hastampatti Police Station for the alleged commission of the offence under Section 147,152,153(A), 120(B), 353 and 506(II) I.P.C read with Section 341 of the TNPPD Act and the detenu was enlarged on bail by invoking Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the said case. However, the detenu could not avail the benefit of said order as he was in confinement in case in S.C.No.342 of 2002 which was pending on the file of the Fast Track Court No.III, Madurai, at that time. 8. However, the detenu could not avail the benefit of said order as he was in confinement in case in S.C.No.342 of 2002 which was pending on the file of the Fast Track Court No.III, Madurai, at that time. 8. In pursuance to the order of suspension of sentence passed in M.P. (MD) No.1 of 2007 in Crl.A.(MD) No.68 of 2007 dated 16.03.2007, the detenu came out on bail and was complying with the condition and while he was complying with the condition , according to the petitioner, he was falsely implicated in one another case in Cr. No. 230 of 2007 on the file of the Vellore South Police Station under sections 294(b), 323 and 506 (ii) I.P.C and remanded to judicial custody on 26.06.2007 and came to be lodged at Central Prison , Vellore. In the case in Cr.No.230 of 2007 registered by the Vellore South Police Station, the detenu was granted bail by the Principal seat of this Court in Crl.O.P. No.26943 of 2007 on 10.09.2007 subject to conditions. 9. The Court of Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem, had issued a P.T. warrant through the forth respondent to produce the detenu on or before 20.08.2007 and in execution of said warrant, the detenu was produced on that day and he was remanded to judicial custody. The detenu filed an application for recalling the warrant and the same was dismissed and subsequently, the said order was set aside by the Principal Seat of this Court in Crl.R.C. No.169 of 2008. This Court vide judgment dated 18.02.2008 has dismissed the appeal in Crl.A.(MD) No.68 of 2007 and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed in S.C. No.342 of 2007 by the Fast Track Court No.III, Madurai and therefore , the detenu had surrendered before the trial Court on 18.03.2008. 10. It is the grievance of the petitioner who is the brother of the detenu that the second respondent had left out the periods from 26.07.2007 to 14.02.2008 and during the said period, the detenu was confined at the Central Prison, at Vellore in connection with the case in Cr.No.230 of 2007 registered by the Vellore South Police Station and in Cr.No.820 of 2002 registered by the Hasthampatti Police Station, Salem. Therefore, the petitioner herein prays for inclusion of the said period of confinement and to give the relief of set off in the respect of the conviction and sentence passed in S.C. No. 342 of 2002 as confirmed by this Court in Crl.A (MD) No.68 of 2007. 11. The second respondent has filed his counter for himself and also on behalf of the respondents 1, 3 and 4. In paragraph No.9 of the counter affidavit, the details of the confinement of the detenu in connection with Cr.No.230 of 2007 registered by South Police Station, Vellore and Cr.No.820 of 2002 registered by Hasthampatti Police Station, Selam, the detenu was in confinement from 10.08.2007 to 14.02.2008. 12. It has been further averred in the counter that since there is no specific order in S.C.No.342 of 2002 passed by the Fast Track Court No.III, Madurai, to set off the period of detention undergone by the detenu in the aforesaid cases, the benefit of set off had not been given to him. The second respondent also placed reliance on the Tamil Nadu Prison Manual, Volume II, Rule No.241 (2) which is extracted as follows: “If a convicted prisoner who has been released on bail convicts on offence during his bail period and is readmitted in the prison the out period shall be counted up to his date of re-admission on readmission in Prison, he shall be treated as convict for his first conviction.” Explanation :”Out period” means the periods spent by the prisoners under sub rule (1) of rule 239.” 13. The second respondent has also given a chart indicating the period of detention to be undergone by the detenu after set off and after usual remissions. As per the said chart, in pursuant to the conviction in S.C. No.342 of 2002, as confirmed in this Court in Crl.A(MD) No.68 of 2007, the detenu has to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and after deducting the period already undergone by him during investigation and the trial of the said case, the detenu has to undergo the detention for the remaining period of one year and one month. 14. On behalf of the petitioner, a chart was produced for calculating the arrest, release and sentence undergone by the detenu. 14. On behalf of the petitioner, a chart was produced for calculating the arrest, release and sentence undergone by the detenu. As per the chart produced on behalf of the petitioner , the period of detention undergone by the detenu in Cr.No.230 of 2007 registered by South Police Station, Vellore and Cr.No.820 of 2002 registered by Hasthampatti Police Station, Salem, between 26.07.2007 and 13.09.2007 and between 10.08.2007 and 14.02.2008, is to be set off as against the sentence passed in S.C.No.342 of 2002 and if the set off is given, the detenu has to undergo the imprisonment for six months and nineteen days only and not one year and one month as calculated by the second respondent . 15. We have carefully heard the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the leaned Additional Public Prosecutor. 16. Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows: “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 reminder, if any, of the term of imprisonment imposed on him. Provided that in cases referred to in Section 433-A, such period of detention shall be set off against the period of fourteen years referred to in that section (Proviso added as per Act 25/2005).” 17. As per the said provision, the provision of set off will be given even after the period of detention during investigation, inquiry or trial against the imprisonment awarded to him against the conviction and such person will be liable to undergo imprisonment only for the remaining period if any. The period of detention must be in the same case and the detention period must terminate on the date of conviction and it does not permit the offender to claim set off for the detention in another case. 18. The period of detention must be in the same case and the detention period must terminate on the date of conviction and it does not permit the offender to claim set off for the detention in another case. 18. The question of set off came up for consideration before this Court in H.C.P.No.857 of 2008(P. Kasumani v. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Salem and another). This Court by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and another v. Najakat Alias Mubarak Ali reported in 2001 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1106 and on facts of that case held that that the detenu therein would avail the benefit of set off by virtue of the provision under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and ordered his release. 19. The Honorable Supreme Court of India in the said decision, held that there are two requisites postulated in Section 428 of the Code: ( 1) During the stage of investigation, enquiry or trial of a particular case the prisoner should have been in jail at least for a certain period. (2) He should have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment in that case. As per the ratio laid down, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the same person into two different convictions, would convert into one and thereafter, it would flow into one stream alone. 20. The Honorable Supreme Court of India in State of Maharashtra and another v. Najakat Alias Mubarak Ali reported in 2001 Supreme Court cases (Cri) 1106 further held as follows: “21.We have no reason to think that the High Courts mentioned above have gone wrong in taking the view that Section 428 of the Code permits the accused to have the period undergone by him in the jail as an under trial prisoner set off against the period of sentence imposed on him irrespective of whether he was in jail in connection with the same case during that period……. 44. The only question which according to me needs consideration is the true effect of the expression ”same case” as appearing in Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 44. The only question which according to me needs consideration is the true effect of the expression ”same case” as appearing in Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The provision is couched in clear and unambiguous language and states that the period of detention which it allows to be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on the accused on conviction must be one undergone by him during investigation, enquiry or trial in connection with the “same case” in which he has been convicted. Any other period which is not connected with the said case cannot be said to be reckonable for set off. The view of the learned brother Mr. Justice Thomas according to me accords the legislative intent. Acceptance of any other view would mean necessary (sic. necessarily) either adding or subtracting words to the existing provision, which would not be a proper procedure to be adopted while interpreting the provision in question” 21. As per the dictum laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid decision, any other period which is not connected with the said case, cannot be said to be reckonable for set off. Admittedly, the said two cases in Cr.No.230 of 2007 registered by South Police Station, Vellore and Cr.No.820 of 2002 registered by Hasthampatti Police Station, Salem, are pending investigation and therefore, the period of incarceration undergone by the detenu in those two cases as an under trial prisoner cannot be taken into account for giving the benefit of set off in respect of the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.342 of 2002 by the Fast Track Court No.III, Madurai, as confirmed by this Court in Crl.A.(MD) No.68 of 2007. 22. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.