Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.
Iqram – Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2319 of 2022, SLP (Crl) No. 8238 of 2022
Decided On : 16-12-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 265-G and 447 – Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 136 – Power theft – Conviction and sentence – Plea Bargain – Section 427(1) confers discretion on court to direct that subsequent sentence following conviction shall run concurrently with previous sentence – Trial Judge, in present case, granted a set-off within ambit of Section 428/Section 31 Cr.P.C. – No specific direction was issued by trial court within ambit of Section 427(1) so as to allow subsequent sentences to run concurrently – All convictions took place on same day – When appellant moved High Court, he was aggrieved by conduct of jail authorities in construing direction of trial court to mean that each of sentences would run consecutively at end of term of previous sentence and conviction – High Court ought to have intervened in exercise of its jurisdiction by setting right miscarriage of justice which would occur in such manner, leaving appellant to remain incarcerated for a period of 18 years in respect of his conviction and sentence in nine sessions trials for offences essentially under Electricity Act – Judgment of High Court set aside – Sentences which have been imposed on appellant in nine sessions trials shall run concurrently. (Paras 10, 12, 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Appellant was charged with and put to trial in respect of nine distinct first information reports relating to alleged incidents involving the theft of electricity equipment belonging to the Electricity Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Appellant is in jail for a period of three years.
Findings of Court:
Once petitioner espoused remedy of moving a Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution, High Court ought to have noticed serious miscarriage of justice which would occur consequent upon trial court not having exercised specifically its discretion within ambit of Section 427(1). Sentences which have been imposed on the appellant in the nine sessions trials noticed in the earlier part of this judgment shall run concurrently.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or assistance with drafting related legal documents.
JUDGMENT :
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI.
1. Leave granted.
2. The facts of the present case provide another instance, a glaring one at that, indicating a justification for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction as a protector of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty inhering in every citizen. If the Court were not to do so, a serious miscarriage of justice of the nature which has emerged in the present case would be allowed to persist and the voice of a citizen whose liberty has been abrogated would receive no attention. The history of this Court indicates that it is in the seemingly small and routine matters involving grievances of citizens that issues of moment, both in jurisprudential and constitutional terms, emerge. The intervention by this Court to protect the liberty of citizens is hence founded on sound constitutional principles embodied in Part III of the Constitution. The Court is entrusted with judicial powers under Article 32 and Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The right to personal liberty is a precious and inalienable right recognised by the Constitution. In attending to such grievances, the Supreme Court performs a plain constitutional duty, obligation and function; no more and no less.
3. The appellant was charged with and put to trial in respect of nine distinct first information reports relating to alleged incidents involving the theft of electricity equipment belonging to the Electricity Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
4. Nine sessions trials were conducted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Hapur1 [SST Nos. 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448 and 467 of 2020]. The number of accused in each of the sessions trial varies. The appellant was the constant feature in all the nine trials.
5. The appellant agreed to a plea bargain. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hapur by nine separate judgments dated 5 November 2020, convicted the accused. The appellant was convicted of an offence under Section 136 of the Electricity Act. The accused had been confined in jail as under-trials for varying periods. The Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant to two years’ simple imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in each of the nine cases. The Sessions Judge, however, directed that the period of custody as an under-trial shall be set off against the period of sentence. Where the conviction was of an offence under Section 136 of the Electricity and Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, the trial Judge directed that the sentence shall run concurrently.
6. The appellant is in jail for a period of three years. The appellant moved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 460 of 2021, before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court noted that the writ petition was filed on the premise that the sentences of the appellant in nine separate and distinct cases should run concurrently. The grievance of the appellant was that the jail authorities were not justified in treating the sentences to be consecutive.
7. The Division Bench of the High Court has come to the conclusion that in view of the provisions of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19732 [“Cr.P.C.”] each subsequent term of conviction has to commence at the expiration of the imprisonment currently being undergone by the appellant.
8. The net consequence of the position, as it emerges, is that the appellant would have to undergo a total term of imprisonment of 18 years in respect of the nine convictions for offences under Section 136 of the Electricity Act and cognate provisions.
9. The plea bargain was with reference to the provisions of Chapter XXI-A of the Cr.P.C. Section 265-G stipulates that the judgment delivered by the Court shall be final and no appeal (except a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 and a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution) shall lie in any court against such a judgment.
10. S
Multiple sentences are supposed to run concurrently unless and until directed by Court to run consecutively.
The court must exercise discretion on sentencing to ensure that consecutive sentences do not unjustly extend incarceration, particularly when multiple convictions arise from the same context.
offences like theft, housebreaking, lurking house trespass - Petitioner is involved in several cases and after taking into consideration entire facts and circumstances, it was observed that petitione....
Prior term sentences must be served before subsequent life sentence under Section 427(1) CrPC unless court directs concurrency; Section 427(2) applies only when prior sentence is life imprisonment.
The statutory remedy must be availed before approaching the Constitutional Court, and the discretion to be exercised in directing the sentence to run concurrently would depend upon the nature of the ....
The High Court has the authority to direct sentences from separate convictions to run concurrently under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ensuring fair treatment in sentencing.
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
