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

1955 Supreme(Cal) 70

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Mitter, Renupada Mukherjee
JAINTA KUMAR BANERJEE - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Criminal Revn.  300  Of  1955
Decided On : MAY 5, 1955

Advocates Appeared:
N.K.Sen

The court has the authority under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code to order concurrent sentences for multiple convictions.

Headnote:

Concurrent Sentences - Criminal Conviction - The court ordered the petitioner's sentences to run concurrently for the first three convictions under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to make his sentences concurrent for multiple criminal convictions.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that it had the power under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code to order concurrent sentences for the relevant convictions.

Issues: The issue was whether the court had the authority to make the petitioner's sentences run concurrently for certain convictions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code to exercise its power to order concurrent sentences based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Final Decision: The court directed that the petitioner's sentences for the first three convictions run concurrently.

MITTER, J.

( 1 ) THIS Rule was issued by the Bench taking undefended criminal cases to show cause why the petitioner's sentences should not be made concurrent.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was convicted and sentenced as follows:1. A sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and 6 months under Section 408 of the Penal Code, passed on 19/5/1951;2. A sentence of 4 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200. 00, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 3 months more under Section 420 of the Penal Code, passed an 5/9/1951;3. A sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 200. 00, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 2 months more under Section 420 of the Penal Code, passed on 22/9/1951;and lastly, a sentence of 2 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 474 of He Penal Code passed by Sen, J. on 20-8-1 (sic)2.

( 3 ) THE petitioner prays that the several sentences imposed upon him be directed to run (sic) currently. It is clear that so far as the petitioner (sic) conviction and the sentence imposed upon him (sic) this Court are concerned, we cannot interfere. (sic) regard to the sentences in respect of the other that convictions, we have, in our view; power (sic) Section 561-A. Criminal P. C. to order that they may (sic) concurrently. In all the facts and circumstance (sic) this case, we direct that the petitioner's sentences (sic) respect of the first three convictions do run (sic) currently. The Rule is disposed of accordingly.

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