ORDER : 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth ‘the Code’) challenging the letter No.7108/Warrant/2022, dated 6.8.2022 issued by the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur whereby benefit of Section 428 of the Code has been denied. 2. Facts of the case are that the present petitioner was accused in 3 cases. It is alleged that while he was working as Director of IWC Marketing Company Private Limited, he allured various persons to deposit their money with assurance to double the amount, and he is behind the bars since 27.6.2016. The first case was registered under Crime No.166/2016 in which the petitioner was arrested on 27.6.2016 for offence under Section 420 of the IPC, Section 3 & 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and under Section 10 of the CG Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act, 2005’). A special criminal case No.6/2016 has been conducted before the Sessions Judge/Special Judge (CG Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005) wherein a judgment was passed on 27th March, 2018 holding the petitioner guilty under Section 420 of the IPC. However, the petitioner was acquitted of the charge under Section 10 of the Act, 2005 and Section 3 & 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2 lakhs, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 6 months under Section 420 of the IPC. It has also been ordered to set off of the period under Section 428 of the Code of police custody from 27.6.2018 to 28.6.2016 and judicial custody from 29.6.2016 to 27th March, 2018, total 639 days. 3. On the similar allegations, another offence under Crime No.246/2016 was registered under Sections 420 and 409 of the IPC and the petitioner was arrested on 20th December, 2016. Charge sheet was filed on 30.12.2016 and the said matter was tried by the JMFC, Raipur in Criminal Case No.24227/2016, and the judgment was delivered on 6.7.2021 wherein the petitioner was sentenced to undergo SI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one month, separately, under section 420 of the IPC. It has also been ordered to set off of the period in judicial custody during trial from 20th December, 2016 to 6th July, 2021 i.e. for 1658 days. 4. It is further averred that another Crime No.16/2017 was registered at Police Station Rakhi for offence under Sections 420 & 409/34 of the IPC and Section 10 of the Act, 2005, in which the petitioner was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 11.7.2022 passed in MCRC No.3503/2022. The trial Court has issued the release order in which the petitioner has been informed that as per Jail Rule in second case i.e. Criminal Case No.24227/2016, he would get the benefit of set off under Section 428 of the Code only for the period of 1 year 3 months 8 days, pre-trial detention and not for the period as counted by the trial Court as 1658 days. Therefore, the petitioner could not be released even after completion of the sentence. Hence this petition has been filed seeking direction against the jail authorities to count the sentence in both the Sessions Trials to run concurrently. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent authorities should obey and honour the calculation made by the trial Court. Reliance is placed in the matter of In Ref. High Court of Chhatisgarh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh {CRMP No.1458/2017, decided on 26.9.2018} in which it has been categorically held that the official instructions in the absence of any statutory support cannot override the law in view of Section 427 and 428 of the CrPC and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali, AIR 2001 SC 2255 : (2001) 6 SCC 311 . Therefore, learned counsel prays to release the petitioner from detention and grant him the benefit of set off, as stated by the trial Court or to direct the respondent jail authorities to run the sentence concurrently. 6. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali, AIR 2001 SC 2255 : (2001) 6 SCC 311 . Therefore, learned counsel prays to release the petitioner from detention and grant him the benefit of set off, as stated by the trial Court or to direct the respondent jail authorities to run the sentence concurrently. 6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that if a person undergoing sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Court of law on being convicted of an offence in one case, during the period of enquiry, investigation and trial of some other case, he cannot claim that the period occupied by such investigation, enquiry or trial should be set off against the sentence of imprisonment to be imposed in the latter case. Reliance is placed in the matter of Raghbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (1984) 4 SCC 348 . He further submits that in the light of the said judgment, the State Machinery has issued a circular that the prisoner cannot take double benefit of detention period by virtue of sentences and under trial. Learned State Counsel has drawn attention of the Court towards the circular issued by the Jail Headqaurters, Bhopal, (MP) dated 3.10.1997 in which reference of the judgment in the matter of Raghbir Singh (Supra) was made. He also submits that in the said judgment, instructions issued by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in No.29442 Rules VI.V.38, dated November 29, 1975 were held valid and relevant part of the said instructions read thus:- “The period of detention undergone by a convict in execution of sentence of imprisonment imposed on him by a court of law while facing inquiry or trial in some other case (s) should not be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him on conviction in such other case (s).” Learned State Counsel lastly submits that no illegality has been committed by the jail authorities and the petition be dismissed. 7. Replying the submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that considering the nature of accusations which are almost of identical in nature and considering all the aspects of the case and the fact that in the subsequent conviction, no specific direction has been issued regarding Section 427 (1) of the Code, this Court may pass directions, in the interest of justice, that conviction of both the sentences shall run concurrently. 8. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents annexed with the petition with most circumspection. 9. In the matter of Raghbir Singh (Supra), the following question came for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court : “Whether it is open to a person who is undergoing imprisonment on being convicted of an offence committed by him to claim that the period occupied by the investigation or inquiry carried on and the trial held while he was undergoing imprisonment in respect of another offence alleged to have been committed by him should be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him on being convicted of the latter offence, under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ?” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while answering the said issue categorically observed that if a person is undergoing the sentence of imprisonment imposed by a Court of law on being convicted of an offence in one case during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial of some other case, he cannot claim that the period occupied by such investigation, inquiry or trial should be set off against the sentence of imprisonment to be imposed in the latter case even though he was under detention during such period. In such a case the period of detention is really a part of the period of imprisonment which he is undergoing having been sentenced earlier for another offence. The relevant para 6 reads thus : “6. There was no provision corresponding to Section 428 of the Code in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 which was repealed and replaced by the present Code. It was introduced with the object of remedying the unsatisfactory state of affairs that was prevailing when the former Code was in force. It was then found that many persons were being detained in prison at the pre-conviction stage for unduly long periods, many times for periods longer than the actual sentence of imprisonment that could be imposed on them on conviction. In order to remedy the above situation, Section 428 of the Code was enacted. It provides for the setting off of the period of detention as an under-trial prisoner against the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him. In order to remedy the above situation, Section 428 of the Code was enacted. It provides for the setting off of the period of detention as an under-trial prisoner against the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him. Hence in order to secure the benefit of Section 428 of the Code, the prisoner should show that he had been detained in prison for the purpose of investigation, inquiry or trial of the case in which he is later on convicted and sentenced. It follows that if a person is undergoing the sentence of imprisonment imposed by a Court of law on being convicted of an offence in one case during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial of some other case, he cannot claim that the period occupied by such investigation, inquiry or trial should be set off against the sentence of imprisonment to be imposed in the latter case even though he was under detention during such period. In such a case the period of detention is really a part of the period of imprisonment which he is undergoing having been sentenced earlier for another offence. It is not the period of detention undergone by him during the investigation, inquiry or trial of the same case in which he is later on convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment. He cannot claim a double benefit under Section 428 of the Code i.e. the same period being counted as part of the period of imprisonment imposed for committing the former offence and also being set off against the period of imprisonment imposed for committing the latter offence as well. The instruction issued by the High Court in this regard is unexceptionable. The stand of the State Government has, therefore, to be upheld.” 11. In the matter of Atul Manubhai Parekh v. CBI, (2010) 1 SCC 603 , after considering the principles laid down by the Three Judge Bench in Najakatali (supra), and also considering the scope of Section 428 of Cr.PC, while distinguishing the facts of the case from ‘Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali case (supra), it was held that the period to be set off relates only to pre-conviction detention, and the relevant paras read as under : “8. From the wording of Section 428 it is clear that what is to be set-off is the period of detention, if any, undergone by the convict during the investigation, enquiry or trial of the same case and before the date of such conviction. What has fallen for the interpretation of the courts is the expression “the same case”. While in one set of judgments it has been held that periods of detention undergone in connection with other cases can be counted towards setoff under Section 428 Cr.P.C. in respect of the conviction in another case, in the other set of cases it has been held that it cannot. However, even in Najakat Alia's case, one of the three Hon'ble Judges took a dissenting view that set-off under Section 428 of the Code would have to be in respect of the detention undergone in respect of the same case. It is the said view which had earlier been accepted in Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana, [ (1984) 4 SCC 348 ] and in the case of Champalal Punjaji Shah's case (supra). 9. The wording of Section 428 is, in our view, clear and unambiguous. The heading of the Section itself indicates that the period of detention undergone by the accused is to be set off against the sentence of imprisonment. The Section makes it clear that the period of sentence on conviction is to be reduced by the extent of detention already undergone by the convict during investigation, enquiry or trial of the same case. It is quite clear that the period to be set off relates only to pre conviction detention and not to imprisonment on conviction.” 12. In the matter of Iqram v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1735, no specific direction was issued by the trial court within the ambit of Section 427(1) so as to allow the subsequent sentences to run concurrently. The following was observed in paras 10 & 11 : “10. Section 427 provides that when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such 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. In other words, sub-section (1) of Section 427 confers a discretion on the court to direct that the subsequent sentence following a conviction shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. 11. In Mohd Zahid v. State through NCB, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1183 this Court interpreted the provisions of Section 427 of CrPC after duly considering the precedents in the following terms: “33. Thus from the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the principles of law that emerge are as under: (i) if a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such subsequent term of imprisonment would normally commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he was previously sentenced; (ii) ordinarily the subsequent sentence would commence at the expiration of the first term of imprisonment unless the court directs the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence; (iii) the general rule is that where there are different transactions, different crime numbers and cases have been decided by the different judgments, concurrent sentence cannot be awarded under Section 427 Cr. P.C.; (iv) under Section 427(1) of Cr. P.C. the court has the power and discretion to issue a direction that all the subsequent sentences run concurrently with the previous sentence, however discretion has to be exercised judiciously depending upon the nature of the offence or the offences committed and the facts in situation. However, there must be a specific direction or order by the court that the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence.” 13. In view of the aforesaid principles, it is explicit from record that while passing subsequent sentence by the JMFC, the parties have not brought to the notice of the Court about the earlier conviction and further in the subsequent judgment, the Court has not passed any specific order whether subsequent sentence shall run concurrently or not. In view of the aforesaid principles, it is explicit from record that while passing subsequent sentence by the JMFC, the parties have not brought to the notice of the Court about the earlier conviction and further in the subsequent judgment, the Court has not passed any specific order whether subsequent sentence shall run concurrently or not. Section 427 of the Code specifically deals with sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence and the same reads thus:- “(1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such 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.” 14. This Court would take note of the fact that in the earlier trial in which the petitioner was charged that he has allured various investors from 17th July, 2010 to 17th March, 2016, the names of the victims were mentioned as Anju Sharma, Raghunandan Deewan, Rajesh Sharma, Suresh Sharma, however, in the subsequent judgment also, the name of complainant was Rajesh Sharma and the witnesses who have been examined were Anju Sharma, Rajesh Sharma amongst others. 15. Considering all the aspects of the matter and further considering the principles laid down in the matter of Iqram (Supra), this Court has power and discretion to issue direction that subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. 16. Accordingly, it is ordered that in both the cases, the sentences shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. 17. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is disposed of. 18. Learned State Counsel shall forthwith inform the jail authorities about this order for immediate compliance. 19. 16. Accordingly, it is ordered that in both the cases, the sentences shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. 17. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is disposed of. 18. Learned State Counsel shall forthwith inform the jail authorities about this order for immediate compliance. 19. Let a copy of this order be circulated amongst all the Judicial Officers of the State informing them that while passing any order/judgment under Section 428 of the CrPC, they should specifically mention that set off period shall not be counted against the period of imprisonment imposed in previous conviction which is already undergoing by the accused, as the set off is permitted only for a period of investigation, inquiry and trial of the same case and the Court may pass order that subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence in terms of Section 427 (1) of the CrPC. It is made clear that the period of detention undergone by a convict in execution of sentence of imprisonment imposed on him by a court of law while facing inquiry or trial in some other case (s) should not be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him on conviction in such other case (s).