Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 3717
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Ayyanar - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu - Respondent
Crl.O.P(MD).No.12 of 2025
Decided on : 06-01-2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Sentencing
Act Referred
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA: S.467
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.427, S.482
Headnote
(B) Judicial discretion - Court emphasized that the discretion to order concurrent sentences depends on the gravity of charges and circumstances involved. If all offenses are similar and the defendant has pleaded guilty, it may warrant leniency. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was sentenced for theft in four cases, all adjudicated on the same day, resulting in lengthy incarceration without concurrent rights stated, leading to this petition.
Findings of Court:
Sentences imposed in C.C. No. 521, 522, and 496 of 2021 will run concurrently with C.C. No 494 of 2021, allowing a more favorable approach towards the petitioner’s reform.
Issues: Clarification on the concurrent running of sentences under specific circumstances when multiple offenses are committed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. allows the court to direct concurrent sentences, considering the nature of the offenses and circumstances of the case.
Result: Petition allowed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. J.Vijayaraja
For the Respondent: Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural background of concurrent sentencing. (Para 1 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. court's jurisdiction to manage concurrent sentences. (Para 2) |
| 3. power of courts to order concurrent sentences. (Para 4) |
| 4. judicial discretion based on nature of offences. (Para 6) |
| 5. final order allowing concurrent sentences. (Para 7) |
ORDER :
This Criminal Original petition has been filed to direct the sentences passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul in C.C. No. 521 of 2021, dated 16.08.2023, C.C. No. 522 of 2021, dated 16.08.2023 and C.C. No. 496 of 2021 dated 16.08.2023, to run concurrently along with the sentence passed C.C No.494 of 2021, dated 16.08.2023.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that he has involved in four cases in Cr.Nos.441, 442, 443 and 445 of 2021 on the file of respondent Police for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC. After completion of investigation, the respondent police has filed a final report and the same was taken on file as C.C.Nos.494, 496, 521 and 522 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul. It is the case of prosecution that the petitioner has indulged in theft of two wheelers. After completion of trial, the learned Magistrate has convicted the petitioner for a period of one year simple imprisonment and to set off the earlier period of incarceration vide judgment, dated 16.03.2023. Before passing of judgment, the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of 200 days and after pronouncement of judgment, the petitioner has undergone incarceration as a convict prisoner more than a year. When he enquired the same, the prison authorities informed him that though the judgment was delivered in all the four cases on the same day, there is no specific order to run the sentence period concurrently. Therefore, sentence period has to be undergone separately in all the four cases.
4.The learned counsel further submitted that Section 427 of Cr.P.C., which is correspondent to Section 467 of BNSS states that “sentence on offender sentenced for another offence” and it defines as 467(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 sentenced run concurrently with such previous sentenced. The above proviso would clearly speaks about the inherent power of the Court to direct that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently.
5.In this case, the learned Magistrate has convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the four cases in the following manner:
| FIR No. | Offence | C.C.No. | Date of Judgment and period of conviction | Set off period under Section 428 of Cr.P.C |
| Cr.No.441/2021 | 379 IPC | C.C.No. 496/2021 | 16.08.2023 – One Year SI | 10.07.2021 – 29.09.2021 & 19.04.2023 – 16.08.2023 |
| Cr.No.442/2021 | 379 IPC | C.C.No. 494/2021 | 16.08.2023 – One Year SI | 10.07.2021 – 29.09.2021 & 19.04.2023 – 16.08.2023 |
| Cr.No.443/2021 | 379 IPC | C.C.No. 521/2021 | 16.08.2023 – One Year SI | 10.07.2021 – 29.09.2021 & 19.04.2023 – 16.08.2023 |
| Cr.No.445/2021 | 379 IPC | C.C.No. 522/2021 | 16.08.2023 – One Year SI | 10.07.2021 – 29.09.2021 & 19.04.2023 – 16.08.2023 |
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the decision of this Court in Murugan @ Panni Murugan Vs State in Crl.O.P(MD) No.4142 of 2022 vide order, dated 06.04.2022, in which, it is held that this Court has inherent power to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and issued direction that the sentence imposed by the trial Court to run concurrently. Further, the petitioner had also referred the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.16329 of 2023, dated 17.08.2023, wherein, this Court had extended the benefit of
