Sentencing discretion lies with courts; when not specified, multiple sentences are presumed to run consecutively. Courts must clarify if sentences are concurrent to avoid prejudice against the accused.

ORDER :

V SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.

2. Revision petition is filed by accused No.3, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.405/2005, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.90/2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

3. Operative portion of the order of the learned Trial Magistrate reads as under:

“The offenders are sentenced to undergo simple Imprisonment for a term of 02 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable u/sec 465 г/w Sес.34 of IPC. In default to pay the said fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for term of 01 month each.

The offenders are further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 06 months and shall pay fine of Rs.1,500/- each for the offence punishable u/sec 468 г/w Sec.34 of IPC. In default to pay the said fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 02 months each.

Further, the offenders are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 06 months and shall pay fine of Rs.1,500/- each for the offence punishable u/sec 471 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. In default to pay the said fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 02 months each And the offenders are further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 06 months and shall pay fine of Rs.1,500/- each for the offence punishable u/sec 420 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. In default to pay said fine, they shall further undergo simple Imprisonment of 02 months each.

The offender no.2 Malshetty was in judicial custody from 22-4-2006 to 27-4-2006. The said period of detention shall be setoff against the substantive sentences of imprisonment.

The bail bonds and surety bonds of the offenders shall stand cancelled.

The Ex.p-5 to 8 and Ex-p-14 shall be returned to the complainant (pw-1) and Ex.p-21 to 25 shall be returned to the pw-14 after the expiry of appeal period.

Furnish the copy of this judgment to the offenders free of costs forthwith.”

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, accused No.3 preferred an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.90/2006. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments in detail and dismissed the appeal.

5. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused No.3 has preferred the present revision petition.

6. Sri Kadloor Satyanarayanacharya, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that the Courts below have grossly erred in convicting the accused/petitioner and improperly sentenced and thus, revision petition needs to be allowed.

7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgments.

8. After hearing the arguments of the parties at length, Sri Kadloor Satyanaranacharya, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would fairly submit before the Court that on merits with regard to the proved offences and having regard to the limited revisional scope, petitioner may not have much to submit in regard to conviction of revision petitioner. But on the question of sentence, this Court has to clarify whether the sentences for all the offences should run concurrently or consecutively as the order of sentence has not mentioned anything specifically.

9. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner would invite the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex