Back
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, N.RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, K.SUBBA RAO
Ranchhod Lal – Appellant
Versus
State Of M. P. – Respondent
Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?
Key Points: - The Court upheld separate trials and consecutive sentences for multiple CRPC 409 offenses and held no illegality in trying separately; discretion to run sentences consecutively or concurrently (!) (!) (!) - Section 222(2) CrPC allows lumping multiple items into one charge for criminal breach of trust when exact items/dates can’t be specified, but normal rule is a separate charge for each distinct offense; separate trials for each item are correct mode (!) (!) (!) (!) - Sections 234 and 235 CrPC are enabling provisions allowing multiple offenses in one trial or same-transaction considerations, but not mandatory; can still have separate trials (!) (!) (!) - Sub-section (1) of S. 397 Cr. P.C. requires subsequent imprisonment to commence after prior sentence unless court directs otherwise; discretion to run concurrently or consecutively (!) - High Court’s observations on sentences were reviewed; deterrent sentencing warranted to reflect seriousness of public office misuse (!) - Final decision: Appeals dismissed; appellant’s conviction and 11-year total sentence upheld (!)
Judgment
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.: The appellant, in these four appeals by special leave, was convicted in four cases of an offence under S. 409, I. P. C. and was sentenced to 4 years rigorous imprisonment and fine in the first two cases on January 17, 1962, by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, Shri H. B. Aggarwal. He was also convicted in these two cases of offences under S. 467 read with S. 471 and S. 477A, I. P. C. The sentences imposed for these offences were to run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment for the offence under S. 409, I. P. C. The sentences imposed in the two cases for the offence under S. 409, I.P.C, were to run consecutively as no order had been made by the Sessions Judge for the sentence in the case in which judgment was pronounced later, to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in the other case.
2. In each of the other two cases, the appellant was sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment under S. 409, I. P. C. by Shri Dube, First Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, on July 20, 1963. The Sessions Judge ordered the sentences in these two cases to run concurrently, but did not order them to run concurrently with the sentence awarded in the f
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
