Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Mehtab S.Gill, Ranjit Singh and Arvind Kumar JJ.
Jang Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Appeal No. 48079 of 2006,
Criminal Appeal No. 601 of 2005,
Decided On : OCTOBER 18, 2007
(i) Generally, this thumb rule may not apply if the transaction relating to offences is not the same or the facts constituting two offences are different.
(ii) It is the sentencing Court, which is required to apply its mind and consider what would be an appropriate sentence in a given case or in other words, if the sentences should be concurrent or consecutive.
(iii) Discretion to make the sentences to run consecutively or concurrently would be governed by different consideration, like facts of each case, nature and character of the offences, criminal history sheet and record of the offender, his age, sex--These considerations would appear relevant for the exercise of discretion by Section 427 (1) Cr.P.C.
(iv) Each case is to be decided depending upon its facts.
(v) The nature and gravity of the offence would certainly be a relevant factor and so too the record of the offender including his age, sex etc. (Para 10, 14 & 15)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 427(1)-Execution of sentence where the offender is already undergoing a sentence for another offence-Whether these sentences to run consecutively or concurrently-Held; There are, no set guidelines, principles which would govern the exercise of discretion under Section 427 (1) Cr.P.C.--Section leaves a judicial discretion with the courts to exercise such discretion depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. (Para 9)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 427-Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence-Discretion of the Court to convert consecutive sentences into concurrent-Principles, method and in what manner-Exercise of judicial discretion-Facts-Accused was convicted in FIR No. 216 dated 21.7.1997 and sentenced to suffer 10 years R.I. coupled with fine under Section 399 IPC besides sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years under Section 403 IPC-Accused was also convicted in an FIR No. 103 dated 2.7.1997 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC on 23.3.2004-Execution of sentence awarded under two different judgment-Whether these should run consecutively or concurrent-Held; Interalia-
(i) A person who is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment and is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to an imprisonment or an imprisonment for life, then such imprisonment or imprisonment of life shall commence after the expiration of the imprisonment, to which he has been previously sentenced. This, however, would not be so if the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence.
(ii) Such direction to make the sentences to run concurrently can be exercised by the, trial Court or by the appellate Court or a revisional Court at the time of exercising appellate or revisional jurisdiction as well.
(iii) If the trial Court does not pass any such direction for making the sentences to run concurrently and appeal or revision against said decision is also decoded, than it may not be open for a person to seek such direction for making the sentences to run concurrently by moving an application under Section 482/427 Cr.P.C. (Para 18)
(iv) What principle and consideration will govern the exercise of this discretion, cannot be exhaustively enumerated.
(v) Certain relevant factors may give an indication where such discretion may be exercised. These factors generally would be the nature or character of the offences committed, the prior criminal record of the offender, character his age and sex etc. ghastly nature of the crime. The offender being habitual would also be the factor, which can be relevantly taken into consideration.
(vi) Discretion always is open to be exercised by any Court dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case on any relevant or valid consideration as may be considered so by the Court while holding the trial or deciding the case at the stage of appeal or revision.
(vii) There are, no set guidelines, principles which would govern the exercise of discretion under Section 427 (1) Cr.P.C.--Section leaves a judicial discretion with the courts to exercise such discretion depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.
(viii) It may require a notice that Section 427 Cr.P.C. is aimed at amelioration and this aspect may also require to be kept in view while exercising the discretion. (Para 18 & 19)
Ranjit Singh, J.
1. The applicant-appellant is sentenced to suffer RI in two different FIRs i.e. FIR No. 103 dated 2.7.1997 and FIR No. 216 dated 21.7.1997. He has filed this petition for direction to make the sentences awarded in these two different FIRs to run concurrently.
2. The appeals against the conviction of the applicant-appellant in these two different FIRs as Criminal Appeal No. 601 DB of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No. 1485 SB of 2003 respectively are pending before this Court for adjudication. The present application is filed by the applicant-appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 601-DB of 2005. When the application came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court, it, after noticing different judgments, viewed that though the discretion to convert consecutive sentences into concurrent in two different offences is available but principles, method and manner of exercise of this discretion, is not clearly made out from the different judgments that were cited before the Court. Accordingly, reference was made to Honble the Chief Justice for constituting a Larger Bench to answer the above referred question. That is how, the present application has been a listed for being heard by Full Bench of this Court.
3. The facts needing notice to get the hang of the issues requiring decision, in brief, are that the applicant-appellant was accused in an FIR No. 104 dated 2.7.1997 at Police Station Dharmkot under Sections 302, 201 IPC. Another FIR No. 216 dated 21.7.1997, under Sections 399, 402, 379, 411, 467, 468 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, was registered against the applicant-appellant at Police Station, Sadar, Jalandhar. Yet another FIR No. 103 dated 2.7.1997 under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC came to be registered against him at Police Station Shahkot. The applicant-appellant, however, was acquitted in FIR No. 104 dated 2.7.1997 of Police Station Dharmkot on 1.10.2005, but is convicted FIR No. 216 dated 21.7.1997 and is sentenced to suffer 10 years RI coupled with fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 399 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he is to undergo RI for one year. The applicant-appellant is also sentenced to suffer RI for 7 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 403 IPC in this case. In default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo RI for six months. These sentences were ordered to run concurrently. This conviction and award of sentence is subject matter of challenge in Criminal Appeal No. 1485-SB of 2003. In addition, the applicant-appellant has also been convicted in an FIR No. 103 dated 2.7.1997 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment in addition to a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. He has to undergo RI for one month in default of payment of this fine. The applicant-appellant is also sentenced to suffer 3 years RI under Section 411 IPC. This conviction and sentence is dated 23.3.2004. This is subject matter of appeal, in which the present application is filed. The prayer is that appropriate order be made directing the sentences awarded in the above-noted two different judgments to run concurrently to meet the ends of justice.
4. The Division Bench, before which this application came up for hearing, observed as under while asking for constituting a Larger Bench to consider this question raised in the application :-
"It is clear from these judgments (supra), that though the Court has discretion to covert consecutive sentences into concurrent when two different offences have been committed, but the principles, method and in what manner this judicial discretion is to be exercised, has not been laid down."
5. Thus, the Full Bench, now, constituted, is required to decide about the principles, method and the manner in which this judicial discretion is to be exercised while issuing direction with regard to the execution of the sentences i.e. whether these should run consecutively or concurrently.
6. To determine this question, the Court is basically required to interpret the provisions of Section 427
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
