Can a precedent on remission be mechanically applied where the case rests on a sovereign assurance given in the context of extradition?

Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction — Sentence computation — TADA (P) Act, 1987 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Art.72 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss.432, 433 — Remission — Sovereign assurance — Sentence computation — Concurrent sentences — Double counting of custody — Held: The same period of incarceration cannot be notionally counted twice — once as undertrial custody preceding one conviction and again as post-conviction custody for another — where the two sentences run concurrently. (¶14, 15) Jail-earned remission — Life sentence bounded by sovereign assurance — Held further: Jail-earned remission is not available against a sentence that continues to be one of life imprisonment merely because a sovereign assurance fixes the outer limit of detention; the stipulation does not convert a life sentence into a fixed-term sentence. (¶26, 29) Constitution of India, 1950 — Art.72 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss.432, 433 — Separation of powers — Held further: The Executive's power to consider remission or commutation under Art.72 or ss.432–433 CrPC upon completion of the stipulated period is a separate exercise of executive power that does not alter or convert the judicial sentence. (¶24, 25) Precedent — Ratio decidendi read with material facts — Held further: A precedent on remission cannot be mechanically applied where the case rests on a sovereign assurance given in the context of extradition, not an ordinary sentencing scheme; appeal dismissed in limine. (¶30, 31, 32, 33)