Sentences for multiple offences arising from a single transaction should run concurrently, emphasizing judicial discretion in sentencing.

JUDGMENT :

(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.) :

1. The instant revisional application has been filed at the behest of the accused/ convict directed against the order and judgment dated June 17, 2022 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Siliguri.

2. The company Head Quarter Mahananda BOP of 176 Bn of the BSF lodged complaint with the officer-in-charge, Phansidewa P.S. to the effect that on December 03, 2021 at 4.55 hrs. the officers of the BSF were in a ambush party. The ambush party apprehended one Bangladeshi cattle smuggler with some cattle. On enquiry, the smuggler disclosed before the ambush party that he entered into the Indian territory a day before the date of incident taking advantage of darkness and bamboo bushes. The said smuggler was apprehended and the cattle were seized and forwarded to the officer-in-charge of Phansidewa P.S. along with a written complaint.

3. On the basis of such written complaint, Phansidewa P.S. case No. 85 dated December 03, 2021 under Section 447/186/379/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 14A/14C of The Foreigners Act, 1946 was started against the petitioner.

4. The police took up investigation and on completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for disposal. On the date of fixing for consideration of charge, i.e. June 17, 2022, the accused petitioner was produced in the Court. Charges under Section 14A of The Foreigners Act, 1946 read with Section 447/186/411of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the petitioner. The charges were read over and explained to the accused petitioner to which the accused petitioner pleaded guilty to the charges framed.

5. Accordingly, on the basis of pleading guilty by the accused petitioner, the petitioner was convicted in terms of Section 229 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was sentenced to simple imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 14A of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The petitioner was further sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also sentenced to simple imprisonment for two years for the offences punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court directed the sentences to run consecutively one after another.

7. By filing the instant revisional application, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and/or quashing or modifying the impugned order.

8. At the time of hearing, learned advocate for the revisionist submits that learned Trial Court was not justified in passing the impugned order directing the sentences to run consecutively one after another. It has been submitted that the learned Trial Court ought to have passed an order directing the sentences to run concurrently as the offences relating to Section 14A of the Foreigners Act read with Section 447/186/411 of the Indian Penal Code were allegedly committed in one and the same transaction.

9. In support of such contention, learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon 2023 SCC OnLine Chh 3630 (Mohanlal Khunte Vs State of Chhattisgarh).

10. It is contended by learned advocate for the petitioner that the offences complained of were committed by the petitioner in one and the same transaction, therefore, punishment awarded to the petitioner ought to have been directed to run concurrently instead of consecutive.

11. It was, however, contended by learned advocate for the State that as per the case made out in the First Information Report, the petitioner is said to have confessed that the petitioner entered into the territory of India unautho