Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTHA VARMA, ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, JJ.
Anil Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Respondents
Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1059 Of 2023
Decided On : 19-02-2024
Habeas Corpus - Application of Section 427 Cr.P.C. to Concurrent Sentences - NDPS Act, Gangsters Act - 427(1) - The court discussed the application of Section 427(1) of Cr.P.C. to concurrent sentences under the NDPS Act and the Gangsters Act. It highlighted the discretion of the court to direct subsequent sentences to run concurrently with previous sentences and cited relevant case laws to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted under the NDPS Act and subsequently under the Gangsters Act. The court analyzed the application of Section 427(1) of Cr.P.C. to concurrent sentences and the failure of the subsequent court to consider the previous conviction and apply its discretion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the subsequent conviction was for a similar nature without any further overt act, and therefore extended the benefit of Section 427(1) of Cr.P.C. to the petitioner, directing the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence.
Issues: Application of Section 427(1) of Cr.P.C. to concurrent sentences, failure of subsequent court to consider previous conviction and apply discretion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the discretion under Section 427(1) of Cr.P.C. judiciously, considering the nature of the offences and the facts and circumstances of the case, and directed the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence.
Final Decision: The Habeas Corpus writ petition was allowed, and the petitioner was entitled to be released in terms of the bail order dated 09.08.2023, as the subsequent sentence was directed to run concurrently with the previous sentence.
JUDGMENT :
Anish Kumar Gupta, J. :
1. Heard Sri Grijesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The petitioner, before this Court, has filed the instant Habeas Corpus Writ Petition through his father, Prakash. In this writ petition, the petitioner has submitted that he was implicated in Case Crime No.47 of 2013 under Section 18/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as 'the NDPS Act'), P.S.-Sikandra, District- Kanpur Nagar Dehat and he is in jail since 05.08.2013. The said Case Crime No. 47 of 2013 had resulted in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2013 and the petitioner herein was convicted vide judgement and order dated 22.07.2015 under Section 20(B)(II)(C) of the NDPS Act and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo 12 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Against the said judgement and order dated 22.07.2015, the petitioner herein had filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 4024 of 2015 (Anil Kumar Vs. State of U.P.), wherein during the pendency of the appeal, vide order dated 09.08.2023, the petitioner herein has been directed to be released on bail. It is further submitted on the basis of the aforesaid Case Crime No. 47 of 2013, on 31.07.2013, another Case Crime No. 200 of 2013 was also registered against the petitioner herein under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as 'the Gangsters Act'). In the said case, the said Case Crime No. 200 of 2013 had resulted in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2013 wherein he was convicted and sentenced for a five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- vide judgement and order dated 29.02.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since in the subsequent conviction and sentence vide judgement and order dated 29.02.2016, learned trial court has failed to take note of his previous conviction and sentence awarded in Case Crime No. 47 of 2013, therefore, learned trial court has failed to apply its discretion as provided under Section 427 (1) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petitioner is not being released from jail despite the bail order granted by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 4024 of 2015 as the Jail Authorities consider that both the sentences awarded to the petitioner herein shall run consecutively.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the subsequent conviction under the provisions of the Gangsters Act, wherein he had been awarded and sentenced for five years rigorous imprisonment as the provisions of the Gangsters Act have been imposed only on the basis of the base case under the NDPS Act, he was entitled for the benefit under Section 427 of Cr.P.C., whereby his sentence under the provisions of the Gangsters Act ought to have been directed to run concurrently.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that when the petitioner had been released on bail in the NDPS Act, the base case on the basis of which the Gangsters Act was imposed and tried, the petitioner be released as it would be deemed that the sentence which was imposed in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2013, would run concurrently. Relying upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2017) 5 SCC 53, he has submitted that a person who is already undergoing sentence of imprisonment, when he is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such subsequent term of imprisonment would though normally commence at the expiration of imprisonment to which he was previously sentenced, as per law of the Supreme Court, the petitioner would get the benefit of Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in Benson v. State of Kerala, (2016) 10 SCC 307, has submitted that in cases of similar nature, if conviction had taken place, then, it would be prudent to make the sentences to run concurrently. Learned counsel fo
AI
(1) If a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such subsequent term of imprisonment would normally commence at expiration of im....
Defiance of Parole order – When a sentence of imprisonment for a term is passed under the Code on an escaped convict, Section 426(2)(a) Cr.P.C., is applicable and Court has to take note of explicit p....
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.
Petitioner is not entitled for the relief as contended in the petition to make the sentence as concurrent instead of consecutive and there is an explicit proviso under Section 426 of Cr.P.C., with re....
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 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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary powers of the criminal courts in applying Section 427 Cr.P.C. and determining the concurrent running of sentences in multiple cas....
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
