1. Conviction in nine trials for offences under the Electricity Act — dispute regarding whether sentences run concurrently or consecutively under Section 427, Cr.P.C. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1261
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
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Multiple sentences are supposed to run concurrently unless and until directed by Court to run consecutively.
Multiple sentences are supposed to run concurrently unless and until directed by Court to run consecutively.
Subject
Criminal Law - Sentencing
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION ACT: Art.226
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.32, Art.136
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.265(g), S.447, S.31, S.428, S.427(1)
ELECTRICITY ACT: S.136
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.32, Art.136
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.265(g), S.447, S.31, S.428, S.427(1)
ELECTRICITY ACT: S.136
Headnote
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.
Judgement Key Points
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
- Multiple sentences are generally intended to run concurrently unless the court explicitly directs them to run consecutively (!) (!) .
- The discretion to order concurrent or consecutive sentences lies with the court, which must exercise this power judiciously and with a specific order if concurrent sentences are desired (!) (!) .
- In the case discussed, the trial court did not issue a specific direction under Section 427(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code to run the sentences concurrently, leading to a situation where the sentences were to run consecutively (!) .
- The appellant was convicted in multiple trials for offences under the Electricity Act and related provisions, resulting in a total potential imprisonment of 18 years if sentences run consecutively (!) .
- The appellant challenged the manner in which the sentences were being executed, arguing that they should run concurrently to avoid an unjustly prolonged incarceration (!) .
- The High Court initially held that, based on the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, the sentences should run consecutively, which would have resulted in a lengthy imprisonment period (!) (!) .
- The Supreme Court found that the absence of a specific direction for concurrent sentencing was a procedural oversight and that the sentences in all nine cases should run concurrently (!) .
- The Court emphasized the importance of exercising judicial discretion properly and highlighted that, in the absence of a specific order, the default should be concurrent sentences, especially when all convictions took place on the same day (!) (!) .
- The Court directed the jail authorities to act immediately to implement the order, ensuring that the appellant's sentences run concurrently (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or assistance with drafting related legal documents.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Md. Anas Chaudhary, Shehla Chaudhary, Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary.
For the Respondents: Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Divyanshu Sahay.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Md. Anas Chaudhary, Shehla Chaudhary, Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary.
For the Respondents: Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Divyanshu Sahay.
Table of Contents
2. Whether sentences in multiple distinct cases should run concurrently or consecutively in the absence of a specific judicial direction under Section 427, Cr.P.C. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Failure to exercise discretion under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. resulting in an excessive total term for electricity theft constitutes a serious miscarriage of justice. (Para 12 , 13 )
4. While Section 427 Cr.P.C. generally mandates consecutive sentences, courts must exercise discretion to ensure the sentence is just and avoid serious miscarriages of justice. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — sentences in the nine sessions trials directed to run concurrently. (Para 14 , 15 )
6. What is the general rule under Section 427 Cr.P.C. regarding subsequent sentences of imprisonment?
Subsequent sentences normally commence at the expiration of the previous term unless the court specifically directs that they run concurrently. This is generally the case where there are different transactions and cases decided by different judgments. (Para 10 , 11 )
7. Does a trial court's order for set-off of under-trial custody imply that subsequent sentences should run concurrently?
No. A direction for set-off under Section 428/Section 31 Cr.P.C. is distinct from a specific direction under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. to allow subsequent sentences to run concurrently. (Para 12 )
8. Can a High Court intervene to order concurrent sentences if the trial court failed to exercise its discretion under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C.?
Yes, the High Court may intervene under its jurisdiction to prevent a serious miscarriage of justice, particularly when the consecutive application of sentences results in an excessively harsh penalty. (Para 13 )
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
