Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Nitish Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P.(Cr.) No. 561 of 2022
Decided on : 19-05-2023
Arms Act - Direction for Concurrent Sentencing - Section 25(1-b)a/26(i) of the Arms Act - Section 427 of the Cr.P.C
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks direction to serve the sentence concurrently for a conviction under the Arms Act, as he is already serving a life sentence for a separate case.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the provisions of Section 427 of the Cr.P.C and relevant case law to determine the concurrent sentencing for the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's sentence under the Arms Act should run concurrently with his existing life sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Section 427 of the Cr.P.C and relevant case law to conclude that the petitioner's sentence under the Arms Act should run concurrently with his existing life sentence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner's sentence under the Arms Act should run concurrently with his existing life sentence.
JUDGMENT :
This petition has been filed for direction upon the respondent nos.2 and 3 to forthwith remit the petitioner for the conviction already undergone under Khunti P.S.Case No.176 of 2011, corresponding to G.R.Case No.488 of 2011, wherein the petitioner has been convicted under section 25(1-b)a/26(i) of the Arms Act whereby petitioner has been sentenced for 3 years R.I. with fine Rs.2000/- under section 25(1-b)a of Arms Act and two years simple imprisonment under section 26(i) of Arms Act and in case of default of payment of fine three months simple imprisonment.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 24.01.2014 for life and conviction in Khunti P.S.Case No.176 of 2011, G.R. No.488 of 2011, passed by order dated 31.8.2018 under section 25(1-b)(a)/26(i) of the Arms Act. The petitioner has been sentenced for three years of rigorous imprisonment with Rs.2000/- fine under section 25(i)(b)(a) of the Arms Act and two years of simple imprisonment under section 26(i) of the Arms Act and in case of default of payment of fine three months simple imprisonment and both the sentences are directed to be served concurrently. He submitted that the petitioner was earlier sentenced for life imprisonment in Khunti P.S.Case No.79 of 2013 to undergo imprisonment for life together with fine of Rs.25,000/- and he was in jail custody and subsequently, under Arms Act, he has been convicted by judgment dated 31.8.2013. He submitted that since the petitioner was already in custody since 2014, for life imprisonment, the sentenced passed under Arms Act is required to be served by the petitioner concurrently and for that he referred to sub section 2 of section 427 of the Cr.P.C. Relying on this section, he submitted that the direction may kindly be issued that the petitioner will serve sentence concurrently in both the cases.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent State has submitted that same plea was taken by the petitioner in Cr.Appeal (DB) No.531 of 2016 and by order dated 01.11.2022 the State has been directed to verify as to whether petitioner/appellant has already completed his sentence in Khunti P.S.Case No.176 of 2011 or not. He further submitted that the petitioner was released on parole from 19.2.2021 to 19.3.2021 and absconded from custody from 20.3.2021 to 31.5.2021 and the custody report of the petitioner is annexed as Annexure-B. In life imprisonment case he has served 7 years, 3 months and 9 days and he has been remanded in Khunti P.S.Case No.176 of 2011.
4. He relied in the case of Mohd Zahid v. State through NCB, (2022) 12 SCC 426, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has interpreted the section 427 of the Cr.P.C. in the following manner:
“9.2. -----
Therefore on a fair reading of Section 427 CrPC, when a person who is 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. Meaning thereby the sentences in both the conviction shall run consecutively. However, there is an exception to that, namely, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. There is one another exception. As per sub-section (2) of Section 427 CrPC 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. Therefore, in the aforesaid two cases only the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with previous sentence. Otherwise the subsequent sentence shall run consecutively and the imprisonment in subsequent sentence shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced.”
14. In Neera Yadav [Neera Yadav v. CBI, (2017) 8 SCC 75
AI
The main legal point established is that Section 427 of the Cr.P.C provides for concurrent sentencing for a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for another offence.
Consecutive sentences are standard unless a court explicitly directs otherwise; offenses must be distinct for concurrent sentencing to apply.
The court affirmed that under Section 427 CrPC, sentences for multiple convictions may run concurrently unless compelling reasons dictate otherwise.
Prior term sentences must be served before subsequent life sentence under Section 427(1) CrPC unless court directs concurrency; Section 427(2) applies only when prior sentence is life imprisonment.
The court clarified that unless explicitly ordered, sentences from multiple convictions run consecutively under Section 427 of Cr.P.C., accommodating set-off for time served, emphasizing the legislat....
where there are different transactions, different crime numbers and disposal of those by judgments of different courts, direction to serve the sentences imposed concurrently cannot be issued under Se....
Subsequent sentences for a life convict automatically run concurrently under Section 427(2) of the Cr.P.C., without the need for a court declaration.
The exercise of discretion under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. to allow concurrent running of sentences depends on the nature of the offences, the appellant's circumstances, and the potential impact on the ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
