Judgment :- The respondent herein Karikalan @ Marianesan, who is a Srilankan, was arrested on 12-06-2007 by Tharamangalam Police in Crime No.298/07 for offence under Sections 294, 353,506 of the IPC. A case was filed by the police which ended in conviction on 22.04.2008 and the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Omalur, Salem District, sentenced the respondent herein to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- on two counts totally Rs.1000/-and in default of payment, he should undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. The conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate have been confirmed by the learned I Additional Judge, Salem in the appeal preferred by the accused. 2. It appears that the accused was arrested on 12.07.2007 and subsequently, released on bail on 16.07.2007 and thereafter, the accused was kept in the Special Camp, Chengalpet from 17-10-2007. 3. On 18-12-2008, the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Omalur received a letter from a Tahsildar of the Chengalpet, seeking clarification whether the detention of the accused in the camp of a period from 110. 2007 to 12. 08 should be taken into account and whether the accused should be released as he served the sentence of one year imprisonment . The Learned Judicial Magistrate passed an order stating that the period of detention of the accused in the special Camp from 17-10-2007 to 5-12-08 should be taken into account and the period should be set off. In pursuance of that order, the accused/respondent herein was released from Special Camp on 12. 2009. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, the State preferred an Application under Section 482 of the Criminal procedure Code seeking to set aside the order of the Learned Magistrate setting off the period of detention in the Special Camp for the sentence of imprisonment. 5. The Learned Govt. Advocate submitted that the accused, after arrest on 12.07.2007, was released on bail on 16.07.2007. His detention in the Special Camp should not have been taken into account for set off since, though the accused was detained in the Special Camp, it was not on the basis of the remand order passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate. 6. Advocate submitted that the accused, after arrest on 12.07.2007, was released on bail on 16.07.2007. His detention in the Special Camp should not have been taken into account for set off since, though the accused was detained in the Special Camp, it was not on the basis of the remand order passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent Mr.S.Manoharan would submit relying on the decision of this Honourable High Court (by Division Bench) in H.C.P.No.1027 & 1028 of 1995, dated 21-12-95, that after the conviction is recorded, if the accused is kept even in Special Camp, that period should be taken as serving the sentence of imprisonment. . 7. This Court has considered and persued the records. The date of arrest of the accused was 12.07.2007 and he was released on bail on 16.07.2007. The accused had been in jail for 5 days in Omalur Sub-jail. Thereafter, though the accused/respondent herein was taken to the Special Camp and detained from 110. 2007. The trial before the Magistrate ended only on 24. 08 and only on that day, he was convicted. In pursuance of the conviction, warrant was issued against the accused/respondent and he was sent to the Special Camp, Chengalpet. 8. Subsequently, on the date of judgment on conviction, he was not sent to regular prison but continued to be detained in the Special Camp. From the date of conviction, i.e., on 22.04.08, though the accused was detained in the Special Camp, Chengalpet, his detention in the Special Camp should be considered as serving sentence of imprisonment. Therefore, the period of detention from 24. 08 till the date of release on 11-02-09 should be taken as a period of serving the sentence of imprisonment as imposed by the Trial Court. The period of 17-10-2007 to 21-4-08 should not have been set off by the Learned Judicial Magistrate since at that time he was neither remanded prisoner nor convict prisoner. 9. If the total period of sentence of imprisonment to be served by the respondent herein is only 9 months 24 days, though the order passed by the Learned Magistrate is partly erroneous and the accused had been released much earlier to completion of serving sentence of imprisonment of one year, this Court, now does not intend to send back the respondent to the prison. This court by using its power under Section 482., of Cr.P.C., reduce the sentence of one year imposed on the acussed/respondent herein to the period already undergone. 10. The Crl.OP. No.17234 of 2009 is ordered accordingly. Consequently the connected M.P. 1 of 2009 is also closed.