Under Section 25 BNSS, 2023, when a court fails to specify whether multiple sentences run concurrently or consecutively, the presumption is in favour of the accused and they shall run concurrently.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 25 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 31 - Sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial - Concurrent or consecutive sentences - Discretion of the court - Presumption under old law vs. new law - Under Section 31 CrPC, 1973, unless the court directed that sentences shall run concurrently, the default rule was that they would run consecutively - Under Section 25 BNSS, 2023, the presumption of consecutive sentences has been omitted, and the court is now mandated to specify whether sentences shall run concurrently or consecutively, considering the gravity of offences - If the trial court fails to specify, the benefit should go to the accused and it should be presumed that the sentences run concurrently. (Paras 3, 11, 12, 13, 14)

(B) Jurisdiction - Determination of bench strength based on sentence - When a convict is sentenced for multiple offences, the highest sentence imposed, not the aggregate of all sentences, determines whether the appeal or revision lies before a Single Bench or a Division Bench. (Paras 15, 20)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, Vicky Giri, was convicted under Sections 392, 397, 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959. The trial court sentenced him to seven years rigorous imprisonment under Sections 392 and 397 IPC, one year under Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC, and two years under the Arms Act, along with fines. However, the order of sentence dated 27.10.2025 did not specify whether these substantive sentences would run concurrently or consecutively. The applicant filed the present application seeking a declaration that the sentences should be presumed to run concurrently.

Findings of Court:
The court held that under the old CrPC, 1973, if the court did not direct concurrent sentences, the default was consecutive sentences. However, under Section 25 of the BNSS, 2023, this presumption has been removed. The new provision mandates the court to specify the order of sentences, considering the gravity of offences. When the trial court fails to comply, the benefit must go to the accused, and the sentences shall be presumed to run concurrently. The court also observed that for determining jurisdiction, the highest sentence imposed (here, seven years) matters, not the total of all sentences.

Issues: Whether sentences imposed without specification of concurrent or consecutive running should be presumed to run concurrently or consecutively under the new BNSS, 2023.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 25 BNSS, 2023, the court must specify whether sentences run concurrently or consecutively. If the court fails to do so, the presumption is in favour of the accused, and the sentences shall be deemed to run concurrently. For purposes of jurisdiction, the highest sentence imposed, not the aggregate, determines the bench strength.

Result: Application disposed off. Direction to treat sentences as concurrent for the purpose of deciding any subsequent application for suspension of sentence and for listing before the appropriate bench.

Table of Content
1. what is the legal issue regarding concurrent vs consecutive sentences and the relevant statutory provisions? (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. what is the established case law on the discretion to order concurrent or consecutive sentences under section 31 crpc? (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. what is the effect of the new bnss provision on the presumption of consecutive sentences and the court's obligation? (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. how should the court determine jurisdiction and dispose of the application in light of the new presumption? (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
5. what administrative suggestions are made for listing cases where sentence orders are silent on concurrent/consecutive running? (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)

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 constituting the two offences are quite different.

5. State of Maharashtra v. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali , 2001 INSC 268, decided on 09.05.2001 the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds as follows [Majority view],

In the above context, it is apposite to point out that very often it happens, when an accused is convicted in one case under different counts of offences and sentenced to different terms of imprisonment under each such count, all such sentenc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 8828

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHAnoop Chitkara, JVicky Giri – AppellantVersusState of Haryana – RespondentCRM-M-1020-2025

Under Section 25 BNSS, 2023, when a court fails to specify whether multiple sentences run concurrently or consecutively, the presumption is in favour of the accused and they shall run concurrently.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J
Vicky Giri – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-1020-2025