Sec. 428 query
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 18 January 2012
This query is : Resolved
Hi Expert,
I have 10 cases against me against a single FIR no. RC/03/98/ACB.(Case belong to some Bank fraud)
Trial of all the cases were conducted at the same parallely.PW's,accused,documents are common in all the 10 cases.
In one case I have been convicted for 5 years RI in Aug,10 and I am in JC since then in that case.
Rest 9 cases(3 combined each so 3 judgments under sec219 CRPC) have been decided in Nov,11 and I have been convicted for 3 years in all these 9 cases separately.
Now my appeals are being pending in DHC.
So I want to know whether I will be getting the benefit of sec 428 in all these 9 cases or not.
Analogous Situation:- If a person has stolen/broken 10 articles from a house then if he is convicted for stealing TV in Aug,10 and that period from Aug,10 to Nov,11 when he was further convicted for stealing other 9 articles will be set off or not. This is my question.
Here. House is Bank,
Stolen/Broken charges are Forging/Corruption
Police is CBI
Accused is me.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 18 January 2012
If you are in jail custody since 'then', then how could you post this query?
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 18 January 2012
Hi Expert,
In Court the advocate becomes the accused.
This is the case of my father.
Regards
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 18 January 2012
So you represent yourself as the accused though he is your father.
Are you an advocate?
Then why did not you mention it?
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 18 January 2012
Barman! How can one anticipate whether the querist is an Advocate or not?
anyway, no benefit of section 428 is going to accrue to the accused in the given facts because the cases are different. The accused is judicial custody against the 1st case and not against the remaining cases so his custody period shall not be included for the cases decided thereafter.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 18 January 2012
It is the usual habit of the querist to claim themselves as friend of some body or as a third person.
Many of them do not reveal their name itself.
We have to look in to the query, not the person.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 18 January 2012
Agreed with Ld. Arunagiri for what he stated.
The query has been rightly answered by Ld. Mr. Makkad.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 19 January 2012
But Experts if you refer cases like K.C._Dass_And_N.K._Chatterjee_vs_State_on_25_April,_1978,Atul_Manubhai_Parekh_vs_Central_Bureau_Of_Investigation_on_24_November,_2009 and State_Of_Maharashtra_And_Anr_vs_Najakat_Alia_Mubarak_Ali_on_9_May,_2001 you will see that in my case 428 is clearly applicable as in my cases FIR is same. So these are similar cases. 428 benefit should NOT be given to criminals who have two different charges and cases of Rape and Murder separately. Even Supreme Court favor 428 applicability in the above cases. Can you answer to my question of Analogous that I have posted?
