JUDGMENT :

Mr. Anoop Chitkara, J.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

FIR No. Date Police Station Sections

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

278 17.12.2023 City Gurugram 392, 397, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 25(1B)(a) of Arms Act

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Criminal Case number before the CIS No.SC-229-2024

Sessions Court CNR No.HRGR01-005350-2024

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Date of Decision 20.10.2025

Date of order on the quantum of sentence 27.10.2025

Name of the convict Vicky Giri

Conviction under Sections 392, 397, 506 r/w 34 IPC and 25(1B)(a) of Arms Act

Sentence imposed Substantive sentence/imprisonment for seven years

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1. The limited point which the applicant has raised for disposal of the present application is that at the time of pronouncement of sentence, it is not mentioned whether the sentence would run concurrently or consecutively, and as such, it should be presumed that it shall run concurrently and not consecutively.

2. It shall be appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the impugned judgment dated 27.10.2025, which mentions the sentence of the applicant, and it reads as follows:

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Convicted under Sentence awarded In default of fine

Section

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

392 IPC Rigorous imprisonment Rigorous imprisonment for one

for seven years and to year

pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-

397 IPC Rigorous imprisonment Rigorous imprisonment for one

for seven years and to year

pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-

506 read with Rigorous imprisonment for Rigorous imprisonment for six

Section 34 IPC one year and to pay a fine months

of Rs. 5,000/-

25(1B)(a) of the Rigorous imprisonment for Rigorous imprisonment for nine

Arms Act 1959 two years and to pay a months

fine of Rs. 5,000/-

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

3. We have gone through the impugned judgment dated 22.10.2025 and the order of sentence dated 27.10.2025; there is no mention of whether the substantive sentences shall run concurrently or consecutively.

After the enactment of BNSS, 2023, this aspect has undergone a sea change. It shall be relevant to refer to §31 of CrPC, 1973, which reads as follows:

[31]. Sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial.— (1) When a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the Court may, subject to the provisions of section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), sentence him for such offences, to the several punishments prescribed therefor which such Court is competent to inflict; such punishments when consisting of imprisonment to commence the one after the expiration of the other in such order as the Court may direct, unless the Court directs that such punishments shall run concurrently.

xxx

4. In Mohd. Akhtar Hussain v. Assistant Collector of Customs, 1988-INSC-257, decided on 31.8.1988, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

The basic rule of thumb over the years has been the so called single transaction rule for concurrent sentences. a given transaction If constitutes two offences under two enactments generally, it is wrong to have consecutive sentences. It is proper and legitimate to have concurrent sentences. But this rule has no application if the transaction relating to offences is not the same or the facts con