The Madras High Court Bench here has allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by a 55-year-old woman and ordered the release of her 38-year-old son languishing in the Salem Central prison after being convicted in 31 cases of theft and robbery registered by the police in Madurai, Dindigul, Erode and Salem districts.

Resolving a dispute over calculating the sentence undergone by the convict in each of the 31 cases, Justices R. Regupathi and R. Subbiah held that the convict, arrested on October 29, 2001 in connection with the first case, ought to have been released as early April 29, 2008 after the completion of the sentence imposed on him in the 31st case.

The judges concurred with the petitioner’s counsel D. Shanmugaraja Sethupathy that as per Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the period of incarceration undergone by a person as a remand/under trial prisoner in a particular case should be deducted from the sentence imposed by the trial court after his conviction.

They also recalled that the Supreme Court in 2001 had held that benefit of Section 482 could be availed by people involved in multiple cases. A convict undergoing punishment in the one case could avail the deduction of remand/trial period in the second case too from the date of registration of the second case, the apex court had said.

The petitioner, N. Salammal of Vadakari near Periyakulam in Theni district, categorised the 31 cases registered against her son into six groups. In the first group of four theft cases registered by the Udumalpet police, he was sentenced by a Judicial Magistrate to one year rigorous imprisonment.

The judgement in the four cases was delivered on January 9, 2003. After setting off the period under remand and trial, he was expected to be released on October 22, 2003. In the meantime, he was sentenced to three years of imprisonment in a second group of five cases registered by the Alangayam police in Erode district.

After completing the sentence imposed in the first group of cases, the sentence in the second group of cases ought to have begun from October 22, 2003. However, on deducting the remand/trial period undergone along with the conviction in first group, he should have been released in the second group of cases on February 26, 2006.

Likewise, the petitioner gave the details of all six groups of cases and claimed that the police were keeping her son in illegal custody instead of releasing him in 2008. She also said the convict, N. Muruganantham, was her only son and his presence was necessary to support her in taking care of his father suffering from renal failure.