SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(SC) 58

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, R. Banumathi, JJ.
Anil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2017 (Arising Out of SLP(Crl.) No. 289 of 2017)
Decided On : 17-01-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :- A. Venayagam Balan, Mrs. V.S. Laxkiashi, Aman Preet Singh Rahi, Advocates.
For the Respondent:- Jayant K. Sud, Ms. Jasleen Chahal, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
When a sentence is already running, the subsequent conviction and sentence normally runs consequently, except in appropriate cases.

Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 427 – A sentence already running – Subsequent conviction and sentence – Normally runs consequently – Except in appropriate cases. (Para 5)

       (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 427 – Appellant convicted and sentenced u/s Section 22, NDPS Act – Subsequently convicted and sentenced u/s 27(b)(ii) and 28, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – Considering nature of the offences for which the appellant was convicted and the facts and circumstances of the case sentences directed to run concurrently – Fine amount and default sentence or sentences maintained – Further directed that in the event of non-payment of fine the default sentence will run consecutively and not concurrently. (Para 8)

       (2013) 7 SCC 211; (2016) 10 SCC 307 : 2016 (9) Scale 670 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant was convicted under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay fine of rupee one lakh and in default to undergo imprisonment for two years.

       The appellant was also convicted under Section 27(b)(ii) and Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-(rupees five thousand).

       The appellant preferred appeal against the said conviction and the same was dismissed by the Appellate Court. The revision preferred by the appellant before the High Court was also dismissed.

       The appellant filed miscellaneous application seeking clarification of the order dated 24.05.2016 and further direction to treat the sentences of the appellant as concurrent in terms of Section 427 (1) and (2) Cr.P.C.

       The said application was dismissed by the High Court.

       Finding of the Court:

       The sentences should run concurrently.

       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

R. Banumathi, J.

This appeal arises out of the order dated 12.07.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM No.19868 of 2016 in CRR No.308 of 2016, whereby the application filed by the appellant seeking direction to treat sentence imposed on him in Complaint No.638 dated 24.08.2009 and that in FIR No.37 dated 19.04.2009 to run concurrently, was declined.

2. Brief facts are as follows. By judgment dated 23.07.2014 in FIR No.37 dated 19.04.2009 PS Longowal, the appellant was convicted under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay fine of rupee one lakh and in default to undergo imprisonment for two years. By the judgment dated 25.08.2014, in the Complaint No.638 dated 24.08.2009, the appellant was convicted under Section 27(b)(ii) and Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-(rupees five thousand). The appellant preferred appeal against the said conviction and the same was dismissed by the Appellate Court. The revision preferred by the appellant before the High Court was also dismissed by the judgment dated 24.05.2016 in CRR No.308 of 2016. The appellant filed miscellaneous application, CRM No.19868 of 2016 seeking clarification of the order dated 24.05.2016 and further direction to treat the sentences of the appellant as concurrent in terms of Section 427 (1) and (2) Cr.P.C. The said application was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order.

3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

4. The power conferred on the Court under Section 427 Cr.P.C. to order concurrent sentence is discretionary. Section 427 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-

"S.427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence.- (1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence:

Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under Section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately.

(2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence."

5. In terms of sub-section (1) of Section 427, if a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such subsequent term of imprisonment would normally commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he was previously sentenced. Only in appropriate cases, considering the facts of the case, the court can make the sentence run concurrently with an earlier sentence imposed. The investiture of such discretion, presupposes that such discretion be exercised by the Court on sound judicial principles and not in a mechanical manner. Whether or not the discretion is to be exercised in directing sentences to run concurrently would depend upon the nature of the offence/offences and the facts and circumstances of each case.

6. In V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana and Anr, (2013) 7 SCC 211, it was held by this Court as under:

"It is manifest from Section 427 (1) that the Court has the power and the discretion to issue a direction but in the very nature of the power so conferred upon the Court the discretionary power shall have to be exercised along the judicial lines and not in a mechanical, wooden or pedanti




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top