ORDER : MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. 1. This is indeed a glaring example of how brazenly state authorities can play with the personal liberty of a citizen. Madan Singh, father of the petitioner Sushil Singh Panwar, who was entitled to be immediately set free from the prison in compliance of the judgment dated 08.03.2017 passed by this Court in S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3560/2015, has not been released as yet and continues to languish in jail. 2. As per the details furnished by the petitioner in the memorandum of the petition, his father Madan Singh was initially convicted in Criminal Case No. 30/2003 vide judgment dated 30.08.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby he was awarded substantive sentence of 6 months with fine, in default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo imprisonment of 3 months. Madan Singh filed appeal against the aforesaid judgment. The appellate court reduced the substantive sentence awarded to him from 6 months to 3 months with fine and in default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo imprisonment of 2 months. He served out both substantive sentence of 3 months and default sentence of 2 months. It was thereafter that he was convicted in different five cases for the same offence of Section 138, N.I. Act and awarded substantive sentence of different prescription with fine and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for different duration. Details of sentences awarded in all such five cases are mentioned as below: Case No. Name of the Court Date of Judgment Substantive sentence Fine Sentence Default 385/2013 (150/04) ACMM No.19, Jaipur Metropolitan 07.09.2013 12 months’ simple imprisonment Rs. 2,00,000 3 months’ simple imprisonment 386/2013 (51/05) ACMM No.19, Jaipur Metropolitan 07.09.2013 12 months’ simple imprisonment Rs. 2,00,000 3 months’ simple imprisonment 42/2013 ACMM No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan 20.01.2014 18 months’ simple imprisonment Rs. 2,93,150 5 months’ simple imprisonment 592/2013 ACMM No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan 24.01.2014 12 months’ simple imprisonment Rs. 1,00,000 4 months’ simple imprisonment 3260/12 ACMM No.19, Jaipur Metropolitan 03.02.2014 12 months’ simple imprisonment Rs. 1,00,000 4 months’ simple imprisonment 3. Madan Singh, father of the petitioner approached this Court by filing S. B. Criminal Misc. 2,93,150 5 months’ simple imprisonment 592/2013 ACMM No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan 24.01.2014 12 months’ simple imprisonment Rs. 1,00,000 4 months’ simple imprisonment 3260/12 ACMM No.19, Jaipur Metropolitan 03.02.2014 12 months’ simple imprisonment Rs. 1,00,000 4 months’ simple imprisonment 3. Madan Singh, father of the petitioner approached this Court by filing S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3560/2015 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. inter alia praying for direction that substantive sentences awarded to him in the aforementioned five cases be ordered to run concurrently as the trial courts/appellate courts in all the aforementioned cases have erred in law in not directing so by ignoring the provisions of Section 427 Cr.P.C. A learned Single Judge of this Court, allowed the petition vide order dated 08.03.2017 in the following terms:- “9. I have considered the contentions and have gone through the judgments on which the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance. The Court below in this case have not considered the provision of Section 427 Cr. P.C. and as held in “Arjun Ram versus State of Rajasthan (supra).” This Court is inclined to invoke the inherent powers vested under Section 482 Cr. P.C. 10. As the present petitioner is languishing in jail from 16.02.2013 in relation to conviction in five cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and in none of the cases the provision of Section 427 Cr. P.C. was taken note of by the Court below, taking note of the fact that the petitioner has already undergone a sentence of more than four years in light of the judgment of the Apex Court, State of Punjab vs. Madan Lal (supra)”. I deem it proper to allow the miscellaneous petition. 11. Consequently, the miscellaneous petition is allowed. It is directed that the sentences passed in all aforesaid complaints, would run concurrently.” 4. Mr. Giriraj P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that apart from award of substantive sentence of three months and default sentence of two months, thus total five months in the first case, the father of the petitioner was awarded maximum substantive sentence of 18 months in criminal case no. 42/2013, in one out of five later cases referred to above, with substantive sentence of 12 months of simple imprisonment being awarded in remaining four cases. 42/2013, in one out of five later cases referred to above, with substantive sentence of 12 months of simple imprisonment being awarded in remaining four cases. In all these five cases, total sentence of 19 months on account of accused Madan Singh for not being able to deposit amount of fine would be awardable. He was thus liable to suffer maximum period of sentence added in all five cases i.e. 19 months (3+3+5+4+4) and if the period of 5 months in the first case, 18 months of substantive sentence and 19 months of default sentence in all five cases is added, this would come to maximum period of 42 months, for which father of the petitioner Madan Singh could have been detained in the jail. 5. It is argued that judgment of this Court, while allowing Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3560/2015 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by Madan Singh, was rendered on 08.03.2017, which date falls after 1st March, 2017, when he otherwise completed his sentence of 42 months in jail. Thus, the date on which he should have been released from jail would be 08.03.2017 or at the maximum 1 or 2 days thereafter, within which period aforesaid order would have been conveyed to the jail authorities by the Public Prosecutor, in whose presence aforesaid judgment was passed, the State of Rajasthan being party to the aforementioned petition. Father of the petitioner is being illegally detained in the District Jail, Dausa for last more than 10 months without any authority of law. 6. This Court on 07.12.2017, while taking note of the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner passed the following order: “According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was convicted in six different cases for offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. In first of such cases, he was awarded sentence of three months’ with fine, in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was to further undergo two months additional imprisonment, thus, total five months sentence. He was initially taken in custody on 27.08.2013. Thus period of five months in the first case was complete on 26.01.2014. Thereafter in five cases, for similar conviction for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, he was awarded sentence of different durations, maximum substantive sentence was of 18 months. He was initially taken in custody on 27.08.2013. Thus period of five months in the first case was complete on 26.01.2014. Thereafter in five cases, for similar conviction for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, he was awarded sentence of different durations, maximum substantive sentence was of 18 months. In all these five cases, the sentences were directed to run concurrently, in which the total period of sentence for default in payment of fine, would come to 19 months which period was complete on 25.2.2017. 7. Learned Additional Advocate General however, submits that as per his instructions, the period of default sentence is of one year eight months and ten days, which would be compete on 18.11.2018. 8. If the period as contended by the petitioner is correct, he cannot be detained beyond 25.2.2017. This court, therefore, directs the Addl. Director General of Prisons and District Judge Dausa to verify the facts and if found correct, may immediately release the petitioner from prison or else file detailed explanation as to why they are detaining the petitioner. 9. A copy of this order be provided to the learned Additional Advocate General and also forwarded to Addl. Director General of Prisons, Ghat Gate, Jail Headquarters, Jaipur, for compliance.” 10. It was thereafter that when the matter was listed before this Court on 20.12.2017, learned Additional Advocate General was required to get the affidavit/explanation of the concerned officers filed in compliance of the order of this Court dated 07.12.2017. Said explanation was filed on 21.12.2017. When the matter was again listed before this Court on 03.01.2018 following order was passed: “It is quite unfortunate that despite specific direction of this Court vide order dated 07.12.2017 that if the period as contended by the petitioner is correct, the father of the petitioner cannot be detained beyond 25.02.2017 and he may be immediately released from prison or else detailed explanation be filed by the respondent as to why they are detaining the father of the petitioner. No plausible explanation has been filed for not releasing the petitioner’s father from jail. 11. The Additional Director General of prisons is directed to make compliance of the aforesaid order, otherwise he will remain present on 04.01.2018. List this matter on 04.01.2018.” 12. Mr. No plausible explanation has been filed for not releasing the petitioner’s father from jail. 11. The Additional Director General of prisons is directed to make compliance of the aforesaid order, otherwise he will remain present on 04.01.2018. List this matter on 04.01.2018.” 12. Mr. B.N. Sandu, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that as per compliance report filed, jail authorities interpreted judgment of this Court passed in the aforementioned criminal misc. petition in the terms that in so far as substantive sentences are concerned, all such sentences were taken to have been served concurrently as on 08.03.2017, the date on which aforesaid judgment was rendered and thereafter sentence awarded for default in all five cases would be separately started. In this manner, sentence of default in payment of fine, i.e. 19 months in all five cases would be completed on 18.11.2018. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that a convicted person is detained in the prison on the basis of warrant of punishment issued by the court which passes the order of conviction and sentence. Until and unless, modified warrant of punishment was received from the respective courts, benefit of aforesaid judgment passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3560/2015 could not be extended to the petitioner. It is contended that modified warrant of punishment was received belatedly from the Court of Sessions Judge, Dausa on 03.06.2017. 13. Mr. Bhupendra Singh Yadav, Additional Director General of Prisons present in the Court submitted that the father of the petitioner could not be released from the prison owing to a particular interpretation of the judgment of this court by the Deputy Superintendent of District Jail, Dausa and that the process is now being initiated for release of the petitioner’s father. 14. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and also taking note of the submissions made by Additional Director General of Prisons present in the Court, we are of the view that once the judgment of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. 14. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and also taking note of the submissions made by Additional Director General of Prisons present in the Court, we are of the view that once the judgment of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3560/2015 filed by father of the petitioner Madan Singh having attained finality, there was absolutely no justification for the view that this judgment for the purpose of making substantive sentence to run concurrently, would be effective for the period anterior thereto and for the purpose of sentence awarded on account of default in making of payment of fine in different five cases would come into effect only from the date of its passing. Once aforesaid judgment was rendered by this Court on 08.03.2017 directing that the sentences passed in all five cases in view of Section 427 Cr.P.C. would run concurrently, the prescription of sentences in all five cases would be taken to have been substituted from the date of order/judgment passed by the original trial court and/or appellate court. 15. We are also not inclined to countenance submission that judgment of this Court passed in aforesaid criminal misc. petition could not be given effect until modified warrant of punishment was received. However, even if one goes by that logic, such modified warrant of punishment, as per the own showing of the respondents, was received on 03.06.2017. Seven more months have gone by since then and yet the father of the petitioner has not been released from the illegal detention. Petitioner has therefore made out a case for issuance of writ of habeas corpus for immediate release of his father. While allowing this petition, we direct the respondent Jail authorities to immediately release father of the petitioner namely Madan Singh Panwar son of Shri Hari Singh from the prison, who is presently lodged with District Jail, Dausa. 16. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent State be directed to pay to the petitioner adequate compensation for his illegal detention for as long as 10 months and to take appropriate disciplinary action against the erring officials. For the present, we are dealing with habeas corpus petition wherein no specific prayer for award of compensation and initiation of disciplinary action against the erring officials has been made. For the present, we are dealing with habeas corpus petition wherein no specific prayer for award of compensation and initiation of disciplinary action against the erring officials has been made. Moreover, this petition has been filed by Sushil Singh Panwar, son of the prisoner Madan Singh and not by the prisoner himself. The right to claim compensation is personal to him. Yet however, we are inclined to observe that father of the petitioner has indeed been in illegally detained for more than 10 months and he for that reason may claim reasonable amount of compensation from the State. Therefore, we set the petitioner’s father Madan Singh at liberty to claim such compensation by filing fresh writ petition or initiate any other proceeding for fixing criminal liability of whosoever is found guilty for detaining him illegally. Even then, we direct the respondent State to fix the liability of the erring officials and initiate appropriate disciplinary action against them for illegal detention of Madan Singh, father of the petitioner for as long as 10 months. This habeas corpus petition is allowed in the terms indicated above.