Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi)
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Mohd Zahid - Appellant
Versus
State through NCB - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1457 of 2021
Decided on : 07-12-2021
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 427 – Running of sentence – 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 imprisonment to which he was previously sentenced – Ordinarily, subsequent sentence would commence at expiration of first term of imprisonment unless court directs subsequent sentence to run concurrently with previous sentence – General rule is that where there are different transactions, different crime numbers and cases have been decided by different judgments, concurrent sentence cannot be awarded under Section 427 of Cr.P.C, – Under Section 427 (1) of Cr.P.C. court has power and discretion to issue a direction that all subsequent sentences run concurrently with previous sentence, however discretion has to be exercised judiciously depending upon nature of offence or offences committed facts in situation – However, there must be a specific direction or order by court that subsequent sentence to run concurrently with previous sentence. (Paras 8.2 and 9)
(B) Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 29 read with Section 21(c) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 427 – Seizure of Heroin – Rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of 15 years with a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded – Appellant-accused has been convicted by two different courts in two different trials for offences with respect to different transactions – Judgments have been delivered in both cases one after another and in subsequent judgment and order of conviction and sentence by Delhi court there is no specific order passed by Trial Court (Court at Delhi) that sentences to run concurrently – Those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instruments in causing death or in inflicting death blow to a number of innocent young victims who are vulnerable – Such accused causes deleterious effects and deadly impact on society – They are hazard to society – Such organized activities of clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have a deadly impact on society as a whole – While awarding sentence or punishment in case of NDPS Act, interest of society as a whole is required to be taken into consideration – Even while applying discretion under Section 427 of Cr.P.C, discretion shall not be in favour of accused who is found to be indulging in illegal trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 8.1, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 31.03.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 879 of 2002, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein original accused and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 29 read with Section 21(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of 15 years with a fine of Rs.1,50,000/for the aforesaid offence in view of the provisions of Section 31(ii) of the NDPS Act, the original accused has preferred the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
Appellant has been convicted with respect to two different transactions, there are different crime numbers and the cases have been decided by the different judgments. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to any benefit of concurrent sentence under Section 427 of Cr.P.C. As observed hereinabove, there is no specific order or direction issued by the court while imposing the subsequent sentence that the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 31.03.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 879 of 2002, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein original accused and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 29 read with Section 21(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of 15 years with a fine of Rs.1,50,000/for the aforesaid offence in view of the provisions of Section 31(ii) of the NDPS Act, the original accused has preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:
2.1 That the appellant herein - original accused faced the trial in connection with FIR No.134/1999 for the offence under Section 23 and Section 21 of the NDPS Act, PS Customs, Amritsar, Punjab for recovery of 4 kg of heroin. He was sentenced to undergo 12 years RI by the Amritsar Court. One another FIR was also filed against the appellant herein - original accused being FIR No.43/1999 at New Delhi for recovery of 750 grams of heroin from Delhi. In the second case also by judgment and order dated 30.01.2002, he was held guilty for the offence under Section 29 read with Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act. The learned Trial Court at Delhi imposed the sentence of 10 years RI (minimum sentence), however, in view of the provisions of Section 31 (ii) of the NDPS Act, which provides for an enhanced punishment for offences after previous conviction, and considering the fact that earlier appellant was convicted for the offence under the NDPS Act in a case arising out of the FIR No.134/1999, the learned Trial Court awarded minimum sentence of 15 years RI. No specific order was passed by the learned Trial Court at Delhi in the trial arising out of FIR No.43/1999 (subsequent trial) that the sentence imposed of 15 years RI would run concurrently or consecutively.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court at Delhi in a case arising out of FIR No.43/1999 (second/subsequent case), the appellant - original accused preferred the appeal before the High Court. Before the High Court, it was mainly submitted on behalf of the appellant - accused that as the appellant - accused had already undergone 12 years sentence in a case arising out of FIR No.134/1999, he cannot be punished twice and that in a case arising out of FIR No.43/1999 he has already undergone sentence of 6 years and 2 months, a lenient view may be taken and the sentences imposed in both the cases/trials, one arising out of FIR No.134/1999 (Amritsar Case) and another arising out of FIR No.43/1999 (New Delhi Case) shall be held to run concurrently. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has not accepted the above and has dismissed the appeal. Hence, the accused has preferred the present appeal.
4. Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, in her short written submissions, has stated that the appellant is a foreign national, resident of Lahore, Pakistan and has been behind bars for the last nearly 22 years as he was arrested on 15.06.1999 in respect of FIR No. 134 of 1999 by the Police Station, Customs, Punjab and he was charged for the offences under Sections 21 and 23 of NDPS Act, 1985, for import of 4kg heroin and was convicted by the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dated 08.12.2000.
Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was under trial for the period from 17.09.1999 to 14.02.2002 and for the second offence the said period has not been taken into consideration. It was submitted that if the sentences are to run consecutively and if the
(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....
The main legal point established is the judicious application of Section 427(1) of Cr.P.C. to concurrent sentences, considering the nature of the offences and the facts and circumstances of the case.
The benefit of section 427 Cr.P.C., 1973 can be granted to the accused if the offences are intertwined and intrinsic, leading to a single transaction, and the Court can exercise its jurisdiction unde....
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....
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....
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 court ruled that once a judgment attains finality, it cannot be altered or reviewed except to correct clerical errors; substantive modifications require specific procedural grounds.
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
