REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No 2319 of 2022

(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No 8238 of 2022)

Iqram

… Appellant

versus

The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors

… Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI

1

Leave granted.

2

The facts of the present case provide another instance, a glaring one at that,

indicating a justification for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction as a protector of

the fundamental right to life and personal liberty inhering in every citizen. If the

Court were not to do so, a serious miscarriage of justice of the nature which has

emerged in the present case would be allowed to persist and the voice of a

citizen whose liberty has been abrogated would receive no attention. The history

of this Court indicates that it is in the seemingly small and routine matters

involving grievances of citizens that issues of moment, both in jurisprudential

and constitutional terms, emerge. The intervention by this Court to protect the

liberty of citizens is hence founded on sound constitutional principles embodied

in Part III of the Constitution. The Court is entrusted with judicial powers under

Article 32 and Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The right to personal

liberty is a precious and inalienable right recognised by the Constitution. In

attending to such grievances, the Supreme Court performs a plain constitutional

duty, obligation and function; no more and no less.

Digitally signed by

GULSHAN KUMAR

ARORA

Date: 2022.12.16

16:24:21 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

3

The appellant was charged with and put to trial in respect of nine distinct first

information reports relating to alleged incidents involving the theft of electricity

equipment belonging to the Electricity Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

4

Nine sessions trials were conducted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-

I, Hapur¹. The number of accused in each of the sessions trial varies. The

appellant was the constant feature in all the nine trials.

5

The appellant agreed to a plea bargain. The Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Hapur by nine separate judgments dated 5 November 2020, convicted the

accused. The appellant was convicted of an offence under Section 136 of the

Electricity Act. The accused had been confined in jail as under-trials for varying

periods. The Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant to two years’

simple imprisonment together with a fine of Rs 1000/- in each of the nine cases.

The Sessions Judge, however, directed that the period of custody as an under-

trial shall be set off against the period of sentence. Where the conviction was of

an offence under Section 136 of the Electricity and Section 411 of the Indian

Penal Code, the trial Judge directed that the sentence shall run concurrently.

6

The appellant is in jail for a period of three years. The appellant moved a petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being Habeas Corpus Writ Petition

No 460 of 2021, before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court

noted that the writ petition was filed on the premise that the sentences of the

appellant in nine separate and distinct cases should run concurrently. The

grievance of the appellant was that the jail authorities were not justified in

treating the sentences to be consecutive.

1 SST Nos 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448 and 467 of 2020

3

7

The Division Bench of the High Court has come to the conclusion that in view of

the provisions of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973², each

subsequent term of conviction has to commence at the expiration of the

imprisonment currently being undergone by the appellant.

8

The net consequence of the position, as it emerges, is that the appellant would

have to undergo a total term of imprisonment of 18 years in respect of the nine

convictions for offences under Section 136 of the Electricity Act and