1. Misappropriation of public funds and forgery — Prosecution split into three separate cases for different periods — Conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code. (Para 4 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 654
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjan Gogoi, Navin Sinha, JJ.
P.N. Mohanan Nair - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1102-1104 of 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 2034-2036 of 2016)
Decided On : 11-07-2017
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
* Court has discretion u/s 427(1), CrPC to order subsequent sentences to run concurrently.
* Court has discretion u/s 427(1), CrPC to order subsequent sentences to run concurrently.
Subject
Criminal Law - Sentencing
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) and Sections 409, 465 and 471, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Appellant misappropriated Rs.92,225/- from public funds during block period 1995-1996 – Case split up in three different cases, for the period 07.07.1992 to 29.12.1992; 21.10.1994 to 31.07.1995 and 12.12.1995 to 30.08.1996 – All three cases between same parties tried jointly on common evidence and conviction and sentence awarded by a common order – Held, allegations constituted a single transaction – Therefore all the three sentences should run concurrently. (Paras 8, 9)
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 427(1) – Sentence on a subsequent conviction while the accused is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment – Shall commence at the expiration of previous sentence – Unless courts directs the sentences to run concurrently – Jurisdiction discretionary – Must be exercised on fair and just principles. (Para 8)
2016 (4) Crimes 137
Facts of the case:
The short question of law for consideration is, if the offences essentially constitute a single transaction, but have been split up by the prosecution into three separate cases, will the sentences imposed individually, run concurrently or consecutively?
Finding of the Court:
All the three sentences should run concurrently.
Result: Appeals disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether sentences for offences constituting a single transaction, split into separate cases, should run concurrently or consecutively under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Allegations constituted a single transaction for a block period split for convenience; common evidence and conviction justify exercising discretion under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. for concurrent sentences. (Para 8 )
4. Where separate prosecutions arise from a single transaction, the court may exercise discretion under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. to order sentences to run concurrently. (Para 8 , 9 )
5. Substantive sentences in the three separate prosecutions directed to run concurrently, excluding default sentences for unpaid fines. (Para 9 )
6. Can sentences for multiple offences split into separate cases run concurrently?
Yes, if the offences essentially constitute a single transaction between the same parties for a block period, the court may exercise its discretion under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. to order the substantive sentences to run concurrently. (Para 8 , 9 )
7. What is the general rule under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. regarding subsequent convictions?
Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. stipulates that where a person undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction, the imprisonment shall commence at the expiration of the previous sentence, unless the court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently. (Para 8 )
8. Does a direction for concurrent sentences include default sentences for non-payment of fines?
No, the court clarified that the direction for substantive sentences to run concurrently does not extend to the default sentence imposed if the fine by way of compensation is not paid. (Para 9 )
ORDER :
Navin Sinha, J.
Leave granted.
2. The substantive appeals against convictions were dismissed as withdrawn on 09.12.2016. Liberty was however granted, to approach this court again if required. On the application made, the special leave petition was resurrected.
3. The short question of law for consideration is, if the offences essentially constitute a single transaction, but have been split up by the prosecution into three separate cases, will the sentences imposed individually, run concurrently or consecutively? The issue stands covered by the decisions in V.K. Bansal vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2013) 7 SCC 211 followed in Shyam Pal vs. Dayawati Besoya, (2016) 10 SCC 761 and Benson vs. State of Kerala, (2016) 10 SCC 307.
4. The appellant was a Peon in the office of Sub Registrar, Vazhoor. He was alleged to have misappropriated Rs.92,225/- from public funds during 1995-1996, without making remittance in the Sub Treasury, creating false challans showing remittance. The Prosecution initiated under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and under Sections 409, 465 and 471, I.P.C. was split up in three different cases, for the period 07.07.1992 to 29.12.1992 registered as C.C. No.21/2002, for the period 21.10.1994 to 31.07.1995 registered as C.C. No.22/2002 and for the period 12.12.1995 to 30.08.1996 C.C. No.23/2002 was registered. The three cases were tried jointly and common evidence was recorded.
5. The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, by a common judgment convicted the appellant to one year rigorous imprisonment under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Act in each one of them, along with fine of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.30,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively. The conviction was further under Section 409 I.P.C to one year rigorous imprisonment in each, as also three months rigorous imprisonment each, under Sections 465 and 471 I.P.C. The substantive sentences in each case were directed to run concurrently.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the allegations for misappropriation were for one transaction, in a block period, for a quantified sum. The appellant will have to undergo the sentences consecutively for each conviction, after the earlier sentence in a case exhausted itself. The appellant is 68 years old. Reference was made to Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. and Shyam Pal (supra) to contend that the sentences awarded individually ought to be directed to run concurrently.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent, referring to Section 31 Cr.P.C. submits that each case was a separate prosecution, relating to a different time period, and for a different sum. It is only in a case where a person is tried in respect of two or more offences in a single transaction, that the sentence can be directed to run concurrently.
8. We have considered the respective submissions, and are of the opinion, that essentially the allegations constituted a single transaction, between the same parties for a block period, split up by the prosecution, presumably for its convenience, into three different cases. The evidence also was common, and so is the conviction. Section 427(1), Cr.P.C. stipulates that where a person undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, it shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment previously sentenced, unless the court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. The jurisdiction being discretionary must be exercised on fair and just principles in the facts of a case.
9. We do not consider it necessary to further elucidate or enter into an exposition of the law, in view of the precedents noticed above. Suffice it to observe that in the facts of the case, the exercise of discretion under Section 427(1) Code of Criminal Procedure, mandates that the substantive sentences imposed upon the appellant in the three se
