IMPORTANT POINT
It is legally obligatory upon the Court of first instance while awarding sentence to specify in clear terms as to whether sentence awarded to the accused would run “concurrently” or “consecutively”.

JUDGMENT

ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed by the accused against the judgment and final order dated 25.04.2014 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Revision Petition No. 924 of 2009 whereby the learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order dated 23.09.2008/01.10.2008 passed by the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in CC No. 2408 of 1995 convicting and sentencing the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Section 52 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as “the IPO Act”), which was confirmed by order dated 08.10.2009 passed by the XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 845 of 2008.

3. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

4. The appellant-accused, at the relevant time, (1.3.1992 to 11.3.1993) was working as Sorting Assistant in Bangalore Packet Sorting Office, Head Record Office (Main Unit) at Bangalore. On the intervening night between 05.03.1993 and 06.03.1993, the appellant-accused while on duty committed theft of a registered insured parcel bearing receipt No. 0127 dated 03.03.1993 containing Gold Chain (V shape) weighing 173.650 Grams worth Rs. 70,410/- which was sent by its owner from Ramavadi Post Office, Bombay for being delivered to the consignee - Gulab Jewellery Shop at K.H.B Road Post Office, Bangalore. The parcel thus could not be delivered to the party concerned though reached to Bangalore post office.

5. Mr. M.N Narasimha Murthy-Assistant Superintendent of Bags (PW-1) in the office of Chief Post Master General of Karnataka, on coming to know of the missing of parcel and commission of the theft of the parcel, immediately lodged a complaint (Ex-P-1) in the High Grounds Police Station. The complaint was accordingly investigated which revealed complicity of the appellant in commission of its theft which led to registration of Crime Case No. 115/1993 against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 381 and 419 of IPC read with Section 52 of the IPO Act. The case was then handed over to the CBI. The CBI registered the case being RC No. 14(S)/93-BLR, which eventually led to filing of the charge-sheet against the appellant in the Court of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore for appellant's prosecution for commission of aforementioned offences.

6. The appellant abjured the guilt and claimed the trial. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, by his order dated 23.09.2008/01.10.2008 passed in CC No 2408 of 1995 convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 381 IPC and Section 52 of the IPO Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 381 IPC and in default of payment of fine amount to undergo further simple imprisonment for 3 months. Similarly, the appellant was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence punishable under Section 52 of the IPO Act and in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo further simple imprisonment of 3 months. So far as the offence punishable under Section 419 IPC was concerned, the appellant was acquitted of the charge.

7. It may be pertinent to mention that the Chief Judicial Magistrate while awarding the punishment for commission of two offences as mentioned above did not mention as to whether both the punishments will run “concurrently” or “consecutively”. In other words, the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in so far as it relates to the award of punishment was concerned it was silent, on this issue.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the appellant filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 845 of 2008 before the XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge