IMPORTANT POINT
It is within the powers of the Court to direct that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 427 – A person already undergoing a sentence – Sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment – Subsequent imprisonment would start on expiry of previous sentence – The last sentence of appellant would thus, after getting all benefits of set off, be over on 02.09.2022 – However, it is within the powers of the Court to direct that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence – Instantly, appellant serving 8th sentence, to be over on 30.08.2017 – Crime no. 9 to 12 for which maximum sentence is two years each committed on the same day – These sentences directed to run concurrently – Default sentences directed to run consequently (Para 6, 9)
       (2013) 7 SCC 211 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       On the allegation that the appellant was involved in committing thefts he was charged of having committed offences on different occasions and was separately tried for offences punishable under (i) Section 379, 414 read with 34 IPC; (ii) Section 379, 414 read with 34 IPC and (iii) Section 379, 414 read with 34 IPC before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chavakkad as also by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kunnamkulam.
       By separate judgments, the appellant was convicted and sentenced in each of the aforesaid crimes. The respective appeals preferred by the appellant were dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Thrissur.
       The Criminal Revision Petitions filed by the appellant in the High Court were also dismissed.
       Finding of the Court:
       Despite section 427 providing that subsequent sentence shall run consequently after expiry of previous sentence, it is within the powers of the Court to direct that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence.
       Result: Appeal partly allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, similar judgments generally emphasize the discretionary power of the court to direct that multiple sentences run concurrently rather than consecutively, even when the statutory provisions suggest otherwise. Courts have recognized that Section 427 of the Criminal Procedure Code confers upon the judiciary the authority to order concurrent running of sentences, taking into account the nature of the offences, the overall criminal conduct, and the interests of justice (!) (!) .

Judgments also highlight that this discretion should be exercised judiciously and not mechanically, considering the specific circumstances of each case. The courts have upheld the principle that while the default position is to run sentences consecutively, the courts may, in their discretion, direct concurrent sentences to avoid undue hardship or to reflect the overall criminality of the conduct (!) (!) .

Furthermore, courts have clarified that this power is to be exercised with judicial prudence, ensuring that the decision aligns with the principles of fairness and justice. The discretion is not bound by rigid rules but is to be exercised based on the facts, the gravity of the offences, and the cumulative impact of the sentences (!) .

In summary, similar judgments affirm the principle that courts have the authority and discretion to order that sentences run concurrently, even when statutory provisions imply a different approach, provided the exercise of such discretion is grounded in sound judicial reasoning (!) (!) .

JUDGMENT :

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Leave granted. These appeals by Special Leave arise out of judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Revision Petition Nos. (i) 808 of 2015 on 16.09.2015, (ii) 859 of 2015 on 16.09.2015, (iii) 858 of 2015 on 14.09.2015 and (iv) 670 of 2015 on 17.09.2015.

2. On the allegation that the appellant was involved in committing thefts he was charged of having committed offences on different occasions and was separately tried in (i) CC No.158 of 2004 before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chavakkad for offences punishable under Section 379, 414 read with 34 IPC, (ii) CC No.1039 of 2003 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chavakkad for offences punishable under Section 379, 414 read with 34 IPC, (iii) CC No.390 of 2004 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chavakkad for offences punishable under Section 379, 414 read with 34 IPC and (iv) CC No.1168 of 2006 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kunnamkulam. By separate judgments, the appellant was convicted and sentenced in each of the aforesaid crimes. The respective appeals preferred by the appellant were dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Thrissur. The appellant filed Criminal Revision Petitions in the High Court which were also dismissed. The following chart would disclose the relevant details:-

C.C. No./Offence	Date of occurrence	Date of Conviction and Sentence by Judicial Magistrate First Class	Crl. Appeal No.	Crl. R.P. No. in the High Court	SLP No.
158/2004 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (in short JMFC) Chavakkad/U/s 379, 414 r/w 34 of IPC	03.06.2003	28.06.06, RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence u/s 379 IPC and RI for 2 years u/s 414 ID RI for 3 months	533/2012 decided on 15.11.2012 by Sessions Judge, Thrissur	808/2015	SLP (Crl.) 3757/2016
1039/2003 in the Court of JMFC, Chavakkad/ U/s 379, 414 r/w 34 of IPC	03.06.2003	28.06.06, RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence u/s 379 IPC and RI for 2 years for offence u/s 414 IPC, ID RI for 3 months.	759/2011 decided on 17.09.2012 by Sessions Judge, Thrissur	859/2015	SLP (Crl.) 3759/2016
390/2004 in the Court of JMFC, Chavakkad/ U/s 379, 414 r/w 34 of IPC	03.06.2003	28.06.06, RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence u/s 379 IPC and RI for 2 years u/s 414 ID RI for 3 months	761/2011 decided on 04.08.2012 by Sessions Judge, Thrissur	858/2015	SLP (Crl.) 3758/2016
1168/2006 in the Court of JMFC, Kunnamkulam/U/s 379 r/w 34 of IPC	03.06.2003	31.12.08, RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.1,000/- ID SI for 6 months	461/2011 decided on 30.09.2011 by Sessions Judge, Thrissur	670/2005	SLP (Crl.) 3756/ 2016

3. These matters came up on 22.04.2016 when this Court noted the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding concurrent running of sentences and issued notice to the State. The learned counsel appearing for the State has produced before us communication dated 27.05.2016 from the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services, which is as under:-

“PRISONS HEADQUARTERS,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Dated: 27.05.2016

WP1-9606/2016

From

The Director General of Prisons & Correctional Services.

The Law Officer,
Office of the Resident Commissioner,
Travancore Palace,
Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi – 110 001.

Sir,

Sub: Prisons – Prisons Headquarters, Kerala -Supreme Court case – SLP (Crl) CRLMP No.6727/2016/Benson vs. State of Kerala – reg.

Ref: Lr. No.38749/B1/2016/Home dtd.19/05/2016

Attention is invited to the subject & reference cited.

I may furnish the details called for vide reference is noted below:

Conviction Details

Sl. No.	Case No., Court and Warrant Date	Sentence Details
1	CC 613/03 JFCM I, Thrissur Wdt.20-11-2003	Sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years u/s 379 IPC Set off 97 days. At large bail period -153 days.
2	CC 533/04 JFMC II, Thrissur Wdt.8-6-2005	Sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years u/s 392 IPC Set off 521 days.
3	CC 529/04 JFMC II, Thrissur Wdt.18-6-2005	Sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years u/s 392 IPC, Set off 493 days.
4	CC 1270/13 JFCM Changanassery Wdt.18-6-2005	Sentenced to undergo RI

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(SC) 815

SUPREME COURT OF INDIADipak Misra, Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.Benson – AppellantVersusState of Kerala – RespondentCriminal Appeal Nos. 958, 960, 959 & 957 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 3757, 3759, 3758 & 3756 of 2016)Decided On : 03-10-2016

IMPORTANT POINTIt is within the powers of the Court to direct that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence.

Cases Referred (1)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.
Benson – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 958, 960, 959 & 957 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 3757, 3759, 3758 & 3756 of 2016)
Decided On : 03-10-2016

IMPORTANT POINT
It is within the powers of the Court to direct that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence.