Delhi District Court
M/S Jetways Travels Pvt. Ltd vs Pride Sports Management Pvt. Ltd on 17 February, 2026
DLND010008182026 Page 1 of 23
Cr Rev 43/2026
PRIDE SPORTS MANAGEMENT PVT LTD AND ORS
Vs.
M/S JETWAYS TRAVELS PVT. LTD.
IN THE COURT OF SAURABH PARTAP SINGH LALER, ASJ-05,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 43/26
1. PRIDE SPORTS MANAGEMENT PVT LTD
302, R.G. Complex, Plot No. 8, Sector 5, Pocket - 1,
Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075
2. Sukanto Das
Managing Director, Pride Sports Management Pvt. Ltd.
Flat No. B-702, 7th Floor, S.B. Youth,
CGHF Society, Sector - 2, Dwarka, New Delhi
...... APPELLANT
(Sh. Amit Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist.)
Also at:
25-D, 3rd Floor, Arjun Appartment,
Vikas Puri (Opposite F Block)
New Delhi - 110018
Versus
M/S Jetways Travels Pvt. Ltd.
Registered Office at Flat No. 5,
U.G.F. Indraprakash Building
21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi - 110001
........ RESPONDENT
(Notice was not issued to the respondent)
SAURABH Digitally
by SAURABH
signed
PARTAP PARTAP SINGH
LALER
SINGH Date: 2026.02.17
LALER 17:44:59 +0530
DLND010008182026 Page 2 of 23
Cr Rev 43/2026
PRIDE SPORTS MANAGEMENT PVT LTD AND ORS
Vs.
M/S JETWAYS TRAVELS PVT. LTD.
DATE OF FILING : 24.01.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 17.02.2026
JUDGMENT
1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1 The present Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred by the convict-revisionist Sukanto Dass under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 i.e. u/s 438 of BNSS, challenging the order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act)-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Ct Cases No. 7732/2018 and 258/2019, whereby and whereunder the learned trial court refused to grant the benefit of set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. to the convict-revisionist for the period from 20th December, 2023 to 25th June, 2024.
1.2 The principal issue that arises for adjudication in the present revision petition is whether the convict-revisionist, who was in judicial custody during the aforesaid period in connection with another criminal case (FIR No. 11/2023, Police Station Shastri Park, Delhi), is entitled to claim the benefit of set-off of the said period of detention against the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him in the present case under Section 428 Cr.P.C. / 468 BNSS, SAURABH Digitally signed by SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.02.17 LALER 17:45:04 +0530 DLND010008182026 Page 3 of 23 Cr Rev 43/2026 PRIDE SPORTS MANAGEMENT PVT LTD AND ORS Vs. M/S JETWAYS TRAVELS PVT. LTD.
particularly when during whole of this period he was undergoing sentence in the other case pursuant to his conviction under Sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").
1.3 The question raised is of considerable importance as it involves the correct interpretation and harmonious construction of Sections 427 and 428 Cr.P.C., and has significant implications for the computation of the actual period of incarceration that the accused- revisionist is required to undergo.
2 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 2.1 The accused-revisionist Sukanto Dass was arraigned as Accused No. 2 in the aforementioned cases being Ct Cases No. 7732/2018 and 258/2019, titled M/s Jetways Travels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pride Sports Management, before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act)-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
2.2 During the pendency of the trial, the accused-revisionist was enlarged on bail, having furnished bail bonds along with sureties. The sureties in question were Smt. Gayatri Das and Shri Samiron Chandra Das, who had executed bail bonds on behalf of the Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.17 17:45:07 +0530 DLND010008182026 Page 4 of 23 Cr Rev 43/2026 PRIDE SPORTS MANAGEMENT PVT LTD AND ORS Vs. M/S JETWAYS TRAVELS PVT. LTD.
accused-revisionist and stood surety for his regular appearance before the trial court.
2.3 On 20th December, 2023, an application came to be filed before the learned trial court by the aforesaid sureties, namely Smt. Gayatri Das and Shri Samiron Chandra Das, seeking cancellation of their endorsement as sureties for the accused-revisionist. In the said application, the sureties categorically stated that the accused-
revisionist Sukanto Dass had been taken into custody in another criminal case, namely FIR No. 11/2023 registered at Police Station Shastri Park, Delhi, and was presently lodged in Jail No. 14, Mandoli, Delhi in connection with the said FIR. The sureties expressed their inability to continue standing surety for the accused in view of these changed circumstances.
2.4 Simultaneously, on the same date i.e., 20th December, 2023, another application was filed on behalf of the accused-revisionist Sukanto Dass through his learned counsel Shri A.A. Khan, seeking issuance of production warrants for the accused from Jail No. 14, Mandoli, Delhi, where he was lodged in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 11/2023, Police Station Shastri Park.
2.5 Both applications were taken up for consideration by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Shri Anurag Chhabra, on 20th December, SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.02.17 LALER 17:45:11 +0530 DLND010008182026 Page 5 of 23 Cr Rev 43/2026 PRIDE SPORTS MANAGEMENT PVT LTD AND ORS Vs. M/S JETWAYS TRAVELS PVT. LTD.
2023. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused (none appeared for the complainant), the learned Magistrate passed the following order:
"For the reasons mentioned in the application, endorsement of sureties Gayatri Das and Samiron Chandra Das in the aforementioned matters stand cancelled.
Issue production warrants against the accused no.2 (without filing of PF), to be executed through concerned Jail Superintendent, returnable for next date of hearing.
Perusal of the case file reveals that on 18.12.2023 when the undersigned was on leave, inadvertently the date was fixed 13.01.2024, however, the same is holiday. Now the accused be produced on 15.01.2024.
Let court notice be issued to the complainant, through Nazarat Branch, returnable on 15.01.2024.
Copy of this order be given 'dasti', as prayed."
2.6 It is thus manifest from the aforesaid order dated 20th December, 2023 that the learned trial court permitted the SAURABH Digitally signed by SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.02.17 LALER 17:45:16 +0530 DLND010008182026 Page 6 of 23 Cr Rev 43/2026 PRIDE SPORTS MANAGEMENT PVT LTD AND ORS Vs. M/S JETWAYS TRAVELS PVT. LTD.
withdrawal of the sureties and simultaneously issued production warrants against the accused-revisionist to be executed through the Jail Superintendent of Jail No. 14, Mandoli, Delhi, directing the production of the accused before the court on 15th January, 2024.
2.7 It is pertinent to note here that the accused-revisionist was already in judicial custody in FIR No. 11/2023, Police Station Shastri Park, at the relevant time. The said FIR was registered for offences punishable under Sections 420/468/471 IPC (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for purpose of cheating, and using as genuine a forged document). The accused had been convicted in the said case, and his conviction was subsequently upheld by the appellate court. Thus, at the time when the sureties withdrew in the present case, the accused was not merely an undertrial in FIR No. 11/2023, but had already been convicted therein and was undergoing the sentence imposed upon him.
2.8 The trial in the present cases (Ct Cases No. 7732/2018 and 258/2019) proceeded thereafter with the accused-revisionist being produced before the court through production warrants from judicial custody. Eventually, the trial culminated in the conviction Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.17 17:45:20 +0530 DLND010008182026 Page 7 of 23 Cr Rev 43/2026 PRIDE SPORTS MANAGEMENT PVT LTD AND ORS Vs. M/S JETWAYS TRAVELS PVT. LTD.
of the accused-revisionist, and he was sentenced to imprisonment on 25th June, 2024.
2.9 After the pronouncement of the judgment and sentence, the accused-revisionist filed an application before the learned trial court seeking the benefit of set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. for the entire period from 20th December, 2023 to 25th June, 2024, contending that during this entire period he was in custody in connection with the present case.
3 THE IMPUGNED ORDER
3.1 The learned trial court, vide the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 rejected the application of the accused-revisionist seeking set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The operative portion and the reasoning of the impugned order, as it has been brought to the notice of this Court, may be summarized as follows:
3.1.1 The learned trial court observed that "the accused was never taken in custody in this case."
3.1.2 The learned Magistrate further observed that the accused was in judicial custody in another case, namely FIR No. 11/2023, Police Station Shastri Park, wherein his conviction Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.17 17:45:24 +0530 DLND010008182026 Page 8 of 23 Cr Rev 43/2026 PRIDE SPORTS MANAGEMENT PVT LTD AND ORS Vs. M/S JETWAYS TRAVELS PVT. LTD.
under Sections 420/468/471 IPC had been upheld by the appellate court.
3.1.3 The learned trial court held that the period during which the accused was serving sentence in the other case (FIR No. 11/2023) could not be counted for the purpose of set-off in the present case under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
3.1.4 Consequently, the application of the accused-revisionist for grant of benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
3.2 It is this order of the learned trial court that is now under challenge in the present revision petition. The accused-revisionist contends that the learned trial court has committed a manifest error both on facts and in law, and that he is entitled to the benefit of set-
off for the entire period from 23rd December, 2023 to 25th June, 2024.
4 GROUNDS OF REVISION 4.1 The accused-revisionist has assailed the impugned order on the following principal grounds:
4.1.1 Ground No. 1: That the learned trial court committed a patent error in observing that "the accused was never taken in Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.17 17:45:29 +0530 DLND010008182026 Page 9 of 23 Cr Rev 43/2026 PRIDE SPORTS MANAGEMENT PVT LTD AND ORS Vs. M/S JETWAYS TRAVELS PVT. LTD.
custody in this case." The revisionist submits that when the sureties were permitted to withdraw on 20th December, 2023 and production warrants were issued against the accused on the same date, the accused was deemed to be in custody in the present case as a matter of law from that date onwards.
4.1.2 Ground No. 2: That the issuance of production warrants by the learned trial court itself establishes and constitutes legal custody of the accused in the present case. The revisionist contends that once production warrants are issued and the accused is directed to be produced from judicial custody, he ceases to be merely on bail and is taken into custody for the purposes of the case in which such production warrants are issued.
4.1.3 Ground No. 3: That the accused-revisionist is entitled to the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. for the entire period from 23rd December, 2023 to 25th June, 2024, as during this entire period he was in custody in connection with the present case and was produced before the court through production warrants from time to time.
4.1.4 Ground No. 4: That the learned trial court failed to appreciate that the withdrawal of sureties and issuance of SAURABH Digitally signed by SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.02.17 LALER 17:45:33 +0530 DLND010008182026 Page 10 of 23 Cr Rev 43/2026 PRIDE SPORTS MANAGEMENT PVT LTD AND ORS Vs. M/S JETWAYS TRAVELS PVT. LTD.
production warrants creates a legal fiction of custody in the case concerned, irrespective of whether the accused is simultaneously in custody in another case as well.
4.1.5 Ground No. 5: That the impugned order is contrary to the statutory mandate of Section 428 Cr.P.C. and works manifest injustice to the accused-revisionist, who has already undergone a substantial period of incarceration.
4.1.6 Ground No. 6: That the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the accused-revisionist is entitled to appropriate set- off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. for the eligible period of detention.
5 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE REVISIONIST 5.1 No notice of the revision petition was issued to the respondent / complainant, as the revision petition primarily deals with computation of the period of sentence only.
5.2 The learned counsel for the revisionist advanced detailed arguments, which may be summarized as follows:
6 On the question of custody:
Digitally signedSAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date:
2026.02.17 LALER 17:45:36 +0530 DLND010008182026 Page 11 of 23 Cr Rev 43/2026 PRIDE SPORTS MANAGEMENT PVT LTD AND ORS Vs. M/S JETWAYS TRAVELS PVT. LTD.
6.1 The learned counsel submitted that the trial court's observation that "the accused was never taken in custody in this case" is manifestly erroneous and contrary to the record. Relying upon the order dated 20th December, 2023, the learned counsel pointed out that on that date, the sureties Smt. Gayatri Das and Shri Samiron Chandra Das filed an application seeking cancellation of their endorsement as sureties, clearly stating therein that the accused had been taken into custody in another case (FIR No. 11/2023, PS Shastri Park) and was lodged in Jail No. 14, Mandoli, Delhi.
6.2 The learned counsel emphasized that the learned trial court, after considering the said application, passed a specific order permitting the withdrawal of the sureties and simultaneously issuing production warrants against the accused. The relevant portion of the order dated 20th December, 2023 reads:
"For the reasons mentioned in the application, endorsement of sureties Gayatri Das and Samiron Chandra Das in the aforementioned matters stand cancelled.
Issue production warrants against the accused no.2 (without filing of PF), to be executed through concerned Jail Superintendent, returnable for next date of hearing."
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.02.17 LALER 17:45:40 +0530 DLND010008182026 Page 12 of 23 Cr Rev 43/2026 PRIDE SPORTS MANAGEMENT PVT LTD AND ORS Vs. M/S JETWAYS TRAVELS PVT. LTD.
6.3 The learned counsel submitted that the moment the sureties are permitted to withdraw and production warrants are issued, the accused is deemed to be in custody in that particular case as a matter of law. The legal fiction of custody is established from the date when the sureties are formally discharged and production warrants are directed to be issued. The accused is no longer on bail in that case; his bail stands cancelled by operation of law upon the withdrawal of sureties.
6.4 The learned counsel argued that the position in law is well- settled that when production warrants are issued against an accused who is in judicial custody, he is deemed to be in custody in the case for which production warrants are issued. The fact that he may simultaneously be in custody in another case is immaterial for this purpose. An accused can be in custody in multiple cases simultaneously, and each case is required to be dealt with independently for the purpose of computing custody and granting set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
7 CONSIDERATION AND FINDINGS Question No. 1: Whether the observation of the learned trial court that "the accused was never taken in custody in this case" is factually and legally correct?
Digitally signedSAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.17 17:45:44 +0530 DLND010008182026 Page 13 of 23 Cr Rev 43/2026 PRIDE SPORTS MANAGEMENT PVT LTD AND ORS Vs. M/S JETWAYS TRAVELS PVT. LTD.
Question No. 2: What is the correct legal position when sureties are permitted to withdraw and production warrants are issued against an accused who is already in judicial custody in another case? Is the accused deemed to be in custody in the case for which production warrants are issued?
Question No. 3: What is the scope and ambit of Section 428 Cr.P.C., and whether the accused-revisionist is entitled to set-off for the period from 23rd December, 2023 to 25th June, 2024?
Question No. 4: What is the interplay between Sections 427 and 428 Cr.P.C., and how are these two provisions to be harmoniously construed?
Question No. 5: Can an accused claim set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. for a period during which he was serving sentence in another case?
Question No. 6: What is the legislative intent behind Sections 427 and 428 Cr.P.C., and what would be the practical implications of allowing set-off for periods spent serving sentences in other cases?
7.1 Question No. 1: Whether the accused was in custody in the present case Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date:
2026.02.17 LALER 17:45:48 +0530 DLND010008182026 Page 14 of 23 Cr Rev 43/2026 PRIDE SPORTS MANAGEMENT PVT LTD AND ORS Vs. M/S JETWAYS TRAVELS PVT. LTD.
7.1.1 On 20th December, 2023, the sureties Smt. Gayatri Das and Shri Samiron Chandra Das filed an application before the learned trial court seeking cancellation of their endorsement as sureties for the accused-revisionist, stating that the accused had been taken into custody in another case (FIR No. 11/2023, PS Shastri Park) and was lodged in Jail No. 14, Mandoli, Delhi.
7.1.2 On the same date, an application was filed on behalf of the accused-revisionist seeking issuance of production warrants from Jail No. 14, Mandoli, Delhi.
7.1.3 The learned trial court, after hearing the submissions, passed an order on 20th December, 2023 permitting the withdrawal of the sureties and simultaneously issuing production warrants against the accused to be executed through the concerned Jail Superintendent.
7.1.4 The production warrants were directed to be returnable on 15th January, 2024 (the next date of hearing, as 13th January, 2024 was a holiday).
7.1.5 Effectively the bonds were cancelled and as such the revisionist is deemed to be have been taken into custody by the court, even if, it is not so recorded specifically.Digitally signed
SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.17 17:45:52 +0530 DLND010008182026 Page 15 of 23 Cr Rev 43/2026 PRIDE SPORTS MANAGEMENT PVT LTD AND ORS Vs. M/S JETWAYS TRAVELS PVT. LTD.
7.2 Question No. 2: Legal position regarding production warrants and custody 7.2.1 Once the production warrants are issued, the Jail Authorities will not release the accused unless specifically directed by court, meaning thereby that the accused / revisionist is in deemed custody of the court. Merely, because it was not so specifically recorded in the ordersheet does not mean that the revisionist was free or not in the custody of the court.
7.3 Question No. 3: Scope and ambit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.
7.3.1 In order to make section 428 Cr.PC applicable:
7.3.1.1 The accused person must have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment (not imprisonment in default of payment of fine);
7.3.1.2 The accused must have undergone detention during the investigation, inquiry or trial of "the same case" in which he is convicted; and 7.3.1.3 The detention must have been undergone before the date of conviction.Digitally signed
SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.17 17:45:56 +0530 DLND010008182026 Page 16 of 23 Cr Rev 43/2026 PRIDE SPORTS MANAGEMENT PVT LTD AND ORS Vs. M/S JETWAYS TRAVELS PVT. LTD.
7.3.2 If the above conditions are satisfied, the period of detention "shall be set off" against the term of imprisonment imposed--the use of the word "shall" makes it mandatory, not discretionary.
7.3.3 The liability of the accused to undergo imprisonment shall be restricted to the remainder of the term after granting set-
off.
7.3.4 The revisionist has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in the Ct Cases No. 7732/2018 and 258/2019 on 25th June, 2024.
7.3.5 He underwent detention from 23rd December, 2023 to 25th June, 2024 during the trial of "the same case" i.e., the present case.
7.3.6 This detention was undergone before the date of conviction i.e., 25th June, 2024.
7.3.7 Therefore, prima facie it seems that the period of detention is required to be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed upon him. However, the interplay of section 427 and 428 Cr.PC need to be discussed at this stage.
Digitally signedSAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date:
2026.02.17 LALER 17:46:00 +0530 DLND010008182026 Page 17 of 23 Cr Rev 43/2026 PRIDE SPORTS MANAGEMENT PVT LTD AND ORS Vs. M/S JETWAYS TRAVELS PVT. LTD.
7.4 Question No. 4: Interplay between Sections 427 and 428 Cr.P.C.
"427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence.
--(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."
8 In Raghubir Singh Vs State of Haryana, 1984 SCC Online SC 156, the appellant Raghbir Singh was arrested on 11th January, 1980 in Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.17 17:46:04 +0530 DLND010008182026 Page 18 of 23 Cr Rev 43/2026 PRIDE SPORTS MANAGEMENT PVT LTD AND ORS Vs. M/S JETWAYS TRAVELS PVT. LTD.
connection with a case registered under FIR No. 315 of 1978. While he was in judicial custody in that case, he was convicted on 1st February, 1980 in another case and was sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. He continued to remain in custody, serving the sentence imposed in the Sessions case. On 16th February, 1981, he was convicted in the earlier case (FIR No. 315/78) and was sentenced to imprisonment. He claimed set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. for the entire period from 11th January, 1980 to 16th February, 1981.
9 Hon'ble Apex Court observed the said case that the accused / revisionist can not claim set off for any period during which he was actually undergoing a sentence of imprisonment in another matter.
10 Section 428 Cr.P.C. entitles an accused to set-off for the period of detention undergone during the investigation, inquiry or trial of the same case in which he is convicted.
11 However, if during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial of a case, the accused is actually undergoing a sentence of imprisonment in another case, he cannot claim set-off for that period in the subsequent case.
Digitally
signed by
SAURABH
SAURABH PARTAP
PARTAP SINGH
LALER
SINGH
Date:
LALER 2026.02.17
17:46:08
+0530
DLND010008182026 Page 19 of 23
Cr Rev 43/2026
PRIDE SPORTS MANAGEMENT PVT LTD AND ORS Vs. M/S JETWAYS TRAVELS PVT. LTD.
12 To allow such a claim would amount to granting double benefit--the same period being counted as part of the sentence in the first case and also being set off against the sentence in the second case.
13 The period during which an accused is serving sentence in one case should be counted only as part of the sentence in that case, and cannot be claimed as undertrial detention in another case for the purpose of Section 428 Cr.P.C.
14 Sections 427 and 428 Cr.P.C. must be read together and harmoniously construed. Section 427 Cr.P.C. mandates that sentences should ordinarily run consecutively. If set-off were to be allowed for periods spent serving other sentences, it would defeat the very purpose of Section 427 Cr.P.C.
15 Question No. 5: Set-off for periods spent serving sentences in other cases 15.1 In accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghbir Singh vs. State of Haryana [1984 SCC Online SC 186; AIR 1984 SC 1972], the accused-revisionist cannot claim set- off for any period during which he was actually undergoing a sentence of imprisonment in FIR No. 11/2023, PS Shastri Park. Only those periods during which he was not serving sentence in the SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.02.17 LALER 17:46:12 +0530 DLND010008182026 Page 20 of 23 Cr Rev 43/2026 PRIDE SPORTS MANAGEMENT PVT LTD AND ORS Vs. M/S JETWAYS TRAVELS PVT. LTD.
other case, but was in custody as an undertrial in the present case, qualify for set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
16 Question No. 6: Legislative intent and practical implications 16.1 In the opinion of the court on accused gets the benefit of set-off for genuine undertrial detention (as contemplated by Section 428 Cr.P.C.);
16.2 The accused does not get double benefit by claiming the same period both as part of sentence in one case and as undertrial detention in another case;
16.3 The principle of consecutive sentences embodied in Section 427 Cr.P.C. is preserved and given effect to only if section 428 Cr.PC is interpreted to mean set off of period of detention other than one while the accused / convict is undergoing sentence in another matter.
16.4 Such an interpretation would prevent the accused for committing crimes during incarceration with impunity. Otherwise a convict in custody for a long period will commit minor offences of threatening, beating etc. inside the jail with impunity.
17 CONCLUSION AND OPERATIVE DIRECTIONS
Digitally signed
SAURABH by SAURABH
PARTAP SINGH
PARTAP LALER
SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.17
17:46:15 +0530
DLND010008182026 Page 21 of 23
Cr Rev 43/2026
PRIDE SPORTS MANAGEMENT PVT LTD AND ORS Vs. M/S JETWAYS TRAVELS PVT. LTD.
17.1 The observation of the learned trial court that "the accused was never taken in custody in this case" is factually incorrect and legally unsustainable. When the sureties were permitted to withdraw on 20th December, 2023 and production warrants were issued against the accused, he was deemed to be in custody in the present case.
17.2 The accused-revisionist was in custody in the present case (Ct Cases No. 7732/2018 and 258/2019) from 20th December, 2023 till 25th June, 2024 (the date of sentence), for all legal purposes.
17.3 The accused-revisionist is entitled to the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. for the period from 23rd December, 2023 to 25th June, 2024, subject to the provisions of Section 427 Cr.P.C.
17.4 In accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghbir Singh vs. State of Haryana [1984 SCC Online SC 186; AIR 1984 SC 1972], the accused-revisionist cannot claim set- off for any period during which he was actually undergoing a sentence of imprisonment in FIR No. 11/2023, PS Shastri Park. Only those periods during which he was not serving sentence in the other case, but was in custody as an undertrial in the present case, qualify for set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
SAURABH Digitally signed by
SAURABH PARTAP
PARTAP SINGH LALER
SINGH Date: 2026.02.17
LALER 17:46:19 +0530
DLND010008182026 Page 22 of 23
Cr Rev 43/2026
PRIDE SPORTS MANAGEMENT PVT LTD AND ORS Vs. M/S JETWAYS TRAVELS PVT. LTD.
17.5 The exact period for which the accused-revisionist is entitled to set-off is the period when he remained in custody in this case, while not undergoing sentence in any other case.
18 ORDER 18.1 (i) The present Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed.
18.2 (ii) The finding of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act)-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi that "the accused was never taken in custody in this case" is set aside as being erroneous, contrary to the record, and legally unsustainable.
18.3 It is held and declared that the accused-revisionist Sukanto Dass was deemed to be in custody in the present case (Ct Cases No. 7732/2018 and 258/2019) from 20th December, 2023 till 25th June, 2024 (being the date of sentence in the present case).
18.4 The accused-revisionist is entitled to the benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the period from 20 th December, 2023 to 25th June, 2024, subject to the provisions of Section 427 Cr.P.C.
18.5 In consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Raghbir Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.17 17:46:23 +0530 DLND010008182026 Page 23 of 23 Cr Rev 43/2026 PRIDE SPORTS MANAGEMENT PVT LTD AND ORS Vs. M/S JETWAYS TRAVELS PVT. LTD.
[1984 SCC Online SC 186; AIR 1984 SC 1972], the accused- revisionist cannot claim, and is not entitled to, set-off for any period during which he was actually undergoing a sentence of imprisonment in FIR No. 11/2023, Police Station Shastri Park, Delhi (in which case he was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 420/468/471 IPC and his conviction was upheld by the appellate court). Such periods, if any, must be excluded from the computation of set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
18.6 Consequently, as revisionist was serving sentence in FIR no.
11/2023 during the whole of the period during which he was in custody in this case, hence, he can not avail the benefit of getting it sef off against the sentence passed in this case. To that extent the impugned order is UPHELD.
19 The revision petition stands disposed off.
20 Copy of the order be given dasti to the revisionist.
21 There shall be no order as to costs.
Announced in the open court on this 17th day of February, 2026.
SAURABH PRATAP SINGH LALER) Digitally signed by ASJ-05/New Delhi District SAURABH PARTAP SAURABH PARTAP PHC / New Delhi / 17.02.2026 SINGH LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.02.17
17:46:27
+0530