Back
1977 Supreme(Ker) 254
Judges : P.JANAKI AMMA
Bhaskaran, Etc. - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Case No : Crl.M.P. Nos. 966 of 1977 and 967 of 1977
Decided On : 11/15/1977
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner: --- For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.
The court emphasized that the power to direct that the sentences in two different cases may run concurrently should be exercised at the latest when the subsequent judgment is pronounced.
Headnote:
Counterfeiting - Criminal Procedure Code - S. 427 - S. 362 - S. 397(1) - S. 31(1) - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS]
Fact of the Case:
The accused filed petitions seeking the court to invoke its inherent jurisdiction and pass an order under S. 427 Cr.P.C. directing the sentences in two cases to run concurrently.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the power to direct that the sentences in two different cases may run concurrently should be exercised at the latest when the subsequent judgment is pronounced.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court is competent to issue directions under S. 427 Cr.P.C. after the disposal of the cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the direction how the sentences in the two cases should run, issued subsequent to the disposal of the cases would amount to alteration of the judgment which is barred under S. 362 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions, stating that the accused did not deserve any sympathy and the sentences passed in the two cases were lenient enough as not to call for further interference.
These petitions are filed by the two accused who were convicted for counterfeiting of currency notes and other allied offences. Crl.M.P. 966/77 is by the 14th accused in S.C. 29 of 1975 of the Court of Session. Trichur. The conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner were confirmed by this Court in Cri. A. 31/76. There was another case against the same person - S.C. 60 of 1975 - wherein also he was convicted. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by this Court in Crl. A. 121/76. There were similar convictions and sentences in the above two cases against the petitioner in Crl.M.P. 967/77. The conviction and sentence in S.C. 29/75 were confirmed in Crl. A. 29/76 and the conviction and sentence in S.C. 60/75 were confirmed in Crl. A. 120/76. Crl. A. 120 and 121/76 were disposed of by this Court on 5th July, 1977 while Crl. A. Nos. 29 and 31/76 were disposed of on 18th August, 1977. In the present petitions filed under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners pray that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court be invoked and an order passed under S. 427 Cr.P.C. directing the sentences in the two cases to run concurrently.
2. The relevant portion of S. 427 Cr.P.C. reads :
"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."
3. There is no doubt that under the above provision the Court is competent to direct that the sentences of imprisonment awarded in two separate cases should run concurrently. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would, however, argue that the occasion for the exercise of such power is when the court disposes of the two cases or when the last case is disposed of. In case the court omits to make the direction then, there is the bar of S. 362 Cr.P.C. to make a subsequent exercise of the power under S. 427 Cr.P.C. S. 362 Cr.P.C. reads :
"Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same, except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error."
4. The argument is that a subsequent exercise of the power would amount to an alteration or review of the judgment already passed.
5. The question as to whether the Court is competent to issue directions of the type mentioned in S. 427 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to S. 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. 1898) after the disposal of the cases has been the subject-matter of decision in a Full Bench case decided by the Allahabad High Court in Mulaim Singh v. State 1974 Crl LJ 1397. The High Court overruling an earlier decision of a single Judge in Ulfat v. State (1970 Cri LJ 767) (All) held as follows :
"Obviously the stage for exercising the discretion is when the Court records the conviction and inflicts punishments on the accused. The discretion under S. 397(1) can also be exercised at the stage when the court records the subsequent conviction. The language employed in S. 397 does not indicate that the discretion to direct that the sentence under the subsequent conviction shall run concurrently with the previous sentence can be exercised at any subsequent stage."
On the question whether a subsequent direction that the sentences shall run concurrently would amount to review or alteration of the judgment, the Full Bench observed :
"It is not only the order of conviction but also the sentence awarded and the directions given in that judgment and constitute integral parts of the judgment and cannot be reviewed or altered after the judgment has been pronounced. The direction contained in a judgment with regard to the sentences imposed on the accused, i.e. whether they shal
