ORDER : 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to direct the Chief Superintendent of Central Prison, Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru to release the petitioner/accused from the jail since he has completed his conviction period of six months by 12.12.2018 in C.C. No.2327/2017 as per the order dated 04.11.2017 passed by the Hon’ble XIII ACMM, Bengaluru. 2. I have heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has remained absent. 3. The factual matrix of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) alleging that the accused was running a Garment business in the name and style of M/s. Ambica Marketing as the accused and his wife have approached and requested the complainant to invest Rs.20 lakhs, they entered into a loan agreement. Since the said amount has not been paid, accused issued the cheques. When the cheques were presented, the same were returned ‘unpaid’. As such, the complaint was registered. After holding the trial, the learned XIII ACMM, Bengaluru by judgment dated 04.11.2017, convicted the accused. 4. The main grounds urged in the petition are that in pursuance of issuance of conviction warrant, the accused was arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate and he has been remanded to the Jail on 12.06.2018. Already, the conviction period of six months has been completed on 12.12.2018, he may be released. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition. 5. Percontra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that there is no provision of law to issue any such direction to release the accused, who is in custody for serving the sentence. It is his further submission that as per the jail manual, the accused is automatically released, if he completes the period of imprisonment. There are no good grounds to issue such direction. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the petition and the submission made by the learned High Court Government Pleader. 7. It is not in dispute that the complainant has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in C.C. No.2327/2017 and the learned Magistrate by judgment dated 04.11.2017, convicted the petitioner/accused. 6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the petition and the submission made by the learned High Court Government Pleader. 7. It is not in dispute that the complainant has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in C.C. No.2327/2017 and the learned Magistrate by judgment dated 04.11.2017, convicted the petitioner/accused. Even the records indicate that he has preferred the appeal before the learned District Judge and he has not complied with the conditions imposed and the trial Court has issued NBW and he has been taken to custody and he has been sent to jail. Taking into consideration of the said fact, the learned Magistrate has followed the procedure established by law and he has been taken to custody. Whether he has served the sentence as ordered or not is a matter which has to be considered by the concerned Court and Jail Authorities and the same will be there, in the conviction warrant if accused has been sent to jail with conviction warrant. If it all he has served the sentence and still accused is in custody, he has to move the trial Court if he has advised to do so. If he has served the sentence, the jail Authorities are going to release the accused if he is not required in any other case. 8. Under such circumstance, no direction can be issued the manner in which the prayer as sought for. Petition being devoid of merits, the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.