Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Kuldeep Tiwari
Manoj Jain – Petitioner
Versus
State of UT Chandigarh - Respondents
CRM-M No. 44318 of 2022
Decided On : 14-06-2024
Concurrent - Sentencing - Cr.P.C. Section 427, Cr.P.C. Section 482 - The court discussed the discretionary power under Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. regarding concurrent versus consecutive sentences, emphasizing that such discretion must be exercised judiciously based on the nature of offenses and the facts of each case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to have sentences from multiple convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act run concurrently instead of consecutively, arguing that all cases stemmed from the same transaction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was convicted in separate cases involving different transactions, thus ruling that the sentences could not be made to run concurrently. The court emphasized the need for discretion under Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. to be exercised judiciously.
Issues: Whether the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for concurrent sentences is maintainable and whether the sentences from different cases can be ordered to run concurrently.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the general rule under Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. is that sentences from different transactions cannot be made to run concurrently unless specifically directed by the court, and that the discretion must be exercised based on the facts of each case.
Result: The petitions are dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Kuldeep Tiwari, J.
The amenability of all these petitions for being decided through a common verdict originates from common questions of law being ingrained therein, besides originating from identical prayers being made therein.
2. To be precise, the relief(s) predominantly yearned in all these petitions is that, despite the petitioner(s) being convicted and sentenced in numerous cases of alike nature, wherein all the sentences are running consecutively, yet a claim for concurrence of all the sentences imposed upon him by the learned convicting courts concerned has been made, by invoking the inherent power of this Court envisaged under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from the lead petition, i.e. CRM-M-44318-2022.
3. The prayer made in the petition at hand relates to issuance of directions for ordering the sentences awarded to the petitioner in ten different cases, for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘N.I. Act’), to run concurrently.
4. For ready reference, the details of all the ten cases, wherein, the petitioner has been convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and ordered to undergo consecutive sentences, are extracted hereinafter:-
| Sr. No. | Complaint No. | Court | Date of Decision | Sentence | Sentence in default of payment of fine |
| 1 | 3782/2017 | JMIC, Chandigarh | 22.08.2019 | R.I. for 02 years |
|
| 2 | 202/2018 | JMIC, Ambala | 29.11.2019 | S.I. for 1½ years |
|
| 3 | 251/2017 | JMIC, Ambala | 29.11.2019 | S.I. for 1½ years |
|
| 4 | 608/2017 | JMIC, Ambala | 19.12.2019 | S.I. for 02 years | 03 months |
| 5 | 2082/2016 | JMIC, Ambala | 16.01.2020 | S.I. for 02 years | 03 months |
| 6 | 201/2019 & COMA1655-2017 | JMIC, Ambala | 13.08.2020 | Imprisonment for the period he already remained in custody i.e. from 09.04.2019 till 13.08.2020 | S.I. for 01 month |
| 7 | 8047/2016 | JMIC, Chandigarh | 19.12.2018 | R.I. for 01 year |
|
| 8 | 508/2018 COMA/511 of 2018 | JMIC, Ambala | 31.07.2020 | 01 year | S.I. for 03 months |
| 9 | 507/2018 COMA/510 of 2018 | JMIC, Ambala | 31.07.2020 | S.I. for 01 year | S.I. for 03 months |
| 10 | 557/2017 COMA/595 of 2017 | JMIC, Ambala | 31.07.2020 | To the period already remained in custody i.e. since 05.08.2019 till 31.07.2020 | S.I. for 01 month |
5. The petitioner’s conviction, as extracted hereinabove, shows that he has been primarily awarded total 12 years of civil imprisonment as substantive sentence, besides becoming awarded sentence of 01 year and 02 months in case of default of payment of fine.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER (S)
6. By referring to the provisions of Section 427 of the Cr.P.C., the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that, once the petitioner became convicted by the learned trial Court concerned for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the learned trial Court concerned ought to have, while convicting the petitioner in the subsequent nine cases of a similar nature, borne in mind the factum of his previous conviction. However, as is evident from the conviction verdicts of those subsequent nine cases, no reference has been made by the learned trial Court to the petitioner’s previous conviction, for the reason that either the said plea did not become raised by the petitioner, or if raised, did not find favour with the learned trial Court concerned.
7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner also draws attention of this Court towards the cases mentioned at Sr. Nos.8 to 10 of the conviction table extracted hereinabove, wherein, the decision has been based on a plea of admission of guilty and accordingly, the learned trial Court concerned passed the
AI
The court affirmed that Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. allows for discretion in sentencing, but such discretion must be exercised judiciously, particularly when dealing with multiple convictions from dif....
The benefit of concurrent sentences cannot be sought through a separate petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. once the judgments of conviction and sentences have attained finality in different cases.
The court may direct sentences to run concurrently under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., considering the nature of offenses and the defendant's likelihood of reform.
Court can use discretion under Section 427 of CrPC to allow concurrent sentences in cases arising from similar transactions, particularly for financial offences without violence.
The High Court has the authority to direct sentences from separate convictions to run concurrently under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ensuring fair treatment in sentencing.
Court may direct sentences to run concurrently when convictions arise out of a single transaction, ensuring proper legal principles are followed under Section 427 of the Cr.P.C.
The court can exercise discretion under Section 427 CrPC to allow concurrent sentences to prevent excessive punishment and ensure justice.
The court applied section 427 Cr.P.C. and relevant Supreme Court precedents to allow concurrent running of substantive sentences for multiple convictions under section 138 of the N.I. Act, considerin....
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
