SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(All) 2917

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD 
SIDDHARTH, AVNISH SAXENA, JJ.
Santosh - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 11627 of 2025
Decided On : 16-07-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ankit Kumar Singh, Vikas Sharma

The court must exercise discretion on sentencing to ensure that consecutive sentences do not unjustly extend incarceration, particularly when multiple convictions arise from the same context.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 427(1) and 428 - Writ petition filed for concurrent running of sentences in six cases of theft of electricity equipment. The trial judge imposed six consecutive one and half year sentences without exercising discretion. The court held it necessary for the trial court to direct concurrent sentences, emphasizing the right to personal liberty. (Paras 2, 3, 9, 13)

(B) Discretion of Court - The court must exercise discretion judiciously under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C., particularly when convictions occur on the same date; failing to do so leads to unjust extended incarceration. (Paras 8, 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted in six cases for theft of electricity equipment under Section 136 of the Electricity Act, receiving consecutive sentences amounting to nine years due to non-exercise of discretion by the trial court.

Findings of Court:
The petitioner’s right to personal liberty was jeopardized; therefore, all sentences shall run concurrently.

Issues: Whether the trial court should have directed the sentences to run concurrently despite being separate convictions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court must exercise its discretion regarding concurrent sentencing to avoid lengthy imprisonment when crimes occur under similar circumstances and dates.

Result: Writ petition allowed; sentences to run concurrently.

Table of Content
1. details of the case and sentences. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding the exercise of discretion. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's observations on sentencing and convictions. (Para 6 , 7)
4. judicial interpretation of section 427 and its implications. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. final ruling on concurrent sentencing. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT :

Avnish Saxena, J.

1. The point of concern in the present writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of direction to the Jail Superintendent District Jail Aligarh for concurrently running of sentence imposed in six cases arising out of theft of electricity equipment, wherein the petitioner was sentenced on admitting the guilt under plea bargaining.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved, as the trial Judge while convicting the petitioner in six cases on the same date has sentenced the accused for imprisonment of one years six months in each case, leading to his incarceration of nine years in jail, due to non exercise of discretion provided under Section 427 (1) Cr.P.C.

3. The six cases in which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced, are tabulated below:-

S. No.Sessions Case No.Case Crime No.Police StationUnder SectionDate of JudgmentSentenceFine Deposited on
12345678
12559/2023Case Crime No. 375/2022Jawan, District- AligarhSection 136 of Electricity Act, 200306-01-2024Imprisonment of 1 year, 6 months and Fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default, 6 months imprisonment.25-04-2025
22560/2023Case Crime No. 10/2023Jawan, District- AligarhSection 136 of Electricity Act, 200306-01-2024Imprisonment of 1 year, 6 months and Fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default, 6 months imprisonment.25-04-2025
32562/2023Case Crime No. 379/2022Jawan, District- AligarhSection 136 of Electricity Act, 200306-01-2024Imprisonment of 1 year, 6 months and Fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default, 6 months imprisonment.25-04-2025
42565/2023Case Crime No. 374/2022Jawan, District- AligarhSection 136 of Electricity Act, 200306-01-2024Imprisonment of 1 year, 6 months and Fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default, 6 months imprisonment.25-04-2025
52566/2023Case Crime No. 361/2022Jawan, District- AligarhSection 136 of Electricity Act, 200306-01-2024Imprisonment of 1 year, 6 months and Fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default, 6 months imprisonment.25-04-2025
62568/2023Case Crime No. 06/2023Jawan, District- AligarhSection 136 of Electricity Act, 200306-01-2024Imprisonment of 1 year, 6 months and Fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default, 6 months imprisonment.25-04-2025

4. Sri Ankit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the discretion provided under Section 427 (1) Cr.P.C. has not been exercised by the trial Judge. The petitioner has confessed the crime on plea bargaining, considering that in all the cases the petitioner would be released after one and half years of imprisonment, as all the cases have been lodged by the police. The non exercise of discretion of consecutive or concurrent running of sentence by the trial Judge while convicting the petitioner simultaneously in six cases led to travesty of justice and long incarceration in jail. He has relied on the case of Iqram Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2023) 3 SCC 184 .

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that Section 427 (1) Cr.P.C. provides the principle of running of sentence consecutively, unless the court directs the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence. The petitioner is apparently a habitual offender, who is convicted for theft of electricity equipment. He was apprehended by the police and accused has pleaded guilty and has been convicted accordingly.

6. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record.

7. The perusal of the judgements of conviction and sentence clearly shows that the order of conviction in six cases, detailed above have been passed by the same Judge, on the same date and on the basis of plea bargaining, on admission of guilt. The sentence passed in eac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top