Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 2315
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SURESH KAIT, J.
PRADEEP - Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI - Respondent
Crl.M.C. No.2675/2015
Decided on : 21st August, 2015
Ms. Aishwarya Rao, Advocate.
Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with SI Sachin Tomar, PS Pandav Nagar.
The court emphasized the discretion of the sentencing court in ordering concurrent or consecutive sentences and the limited scope of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Section 427 - Concurrent Running of Sentences - 427(1), 427(2) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides for the commencement and running of sentences for subsequent convictions. The court highlighted the discretion of the sentencing court to order consecutive or concurrent sentences and referenced relevant case laws to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought concurrent running of sentences for multiple convictions. The court considered the petitioner's criminal history and the legal provisions related to concurrent running of sentences.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's criminal history and the lack of a specific request for relief in the previous appeal did not warrant the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Issues: Concurrent running of sentences, exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the normal rule is for sentences to run consecutively unless directed otherwise, and the petitioner's criminal history did not justify the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
SURESH KAIT, J.
1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 427 read with 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) for concurrent running of sentence in case bearing FIR No.307/2001 registered at Police Station Kalyanpuri, New Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 324/34 IPC and Criminal Appeal No.586/1999 arising out of the judgement dated 29.09.1999.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that while deciding the aforementioned Criminal Appeal No.586/1999, this Court did not give the benefit of concurrent running of sentences to the appellant for the subsequent sentence awarded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 16.11.2011 in case bearing FIR No.307/2001 registered at Police Station Kalyanpuri, New Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 324/34 IPC. He submits that the appellant is in custody since August, 2011 and has already suffered almost four and half years of sentence.
3. Learned counsel further submits that in a catena of cases, it is held that if a person is convicted in more than one case, then the benefit of concurrent running of sentences can be awarded to him.
4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Kotikalapudi Subba Rao Vs. State of A.P. & Ors., 2008 (5) SCC 390.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that generally where several sentences are passed, such sentences should run consecutively, that is, one after the other, unless the Court directs that they will run concurrently.
6. Learned APP submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is involved in a dozen of cases. As per the status report dated 18.08.2015, the petitioner is involved in following cases:-
S.No.
FIR No.
U/s
Police Station
Present Status of Case
1.
389/01
324/34 IPC
Kalyan Puri
Acquitted on 03.06.2013
2.
114/06
24 Arms Act
Kalyan Puri
Convicted on 27.11.06
3.
307/01
324/34 IPC
Kalyan Puri
Convicted on 16.11.2011 for RI of 2 years + find of Rs.500/-.
4.
383/02
380 IPC
Kalyan Puri
Discharged
5.
04/92
307/34 IPC
Pandav Nagar
Convicted on 29.09.1999 for RI of 7 years + find of Rs.1,000/-
6.
251/06
399/402 IPC & 25 Arms Act
Pandav Nagar
Acquitted on 04.04.2008
7.
447/97
324/34 IPC
Hari Nagar
Acquitted on 14.10.1997
8.
219/2000
25 Arms Act
Kalyan Puri
Acquitted on 14.01.2004
9.
363/93
397/307/34 IPC
Kalyan Puri
Acquitted on 01.04.1998
10.
124/02
307 IPC
Kalyan Puri
Acquitted on 25.04.2008
11.
08/92
25 Arms Act
Pandav Nagar
Convicted for 4 months + fine of Rs.100/-
12.
138/93
25 Arms Act
Kalyan Puri
Acquitted on 03.12.1994
7. It is pertinent to mention here Section 427 of the Code, which reads as under:-
"427. (1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under Section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior, to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately. (2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.”
8. The aforenoted Section rela
