1. Conviction under NDPS Act in two separate trials for different transactions — dispute over whether sentences should run concurrently or consecutively under Section 427, CrPC. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 802
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
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 imprisonment to which he was previously sentenced.
(2) While awarding sentence or punishment in case of NDPS Act, interest of society as a whole is required to be taken into consideration.
(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 imprisonment to which he was previously sentenced.
(2) While awarding sentence or punishment in case of NDPS Act, interest of society as a whole is required to be taken into consideration.
Subject
Criminal Law - SENTENCING
Act Referred
Headnote
(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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Sangeeta Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Akanksha Kaul, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocates
For the Appellant(s) :Sangeeta Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Akanksha Kaul, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. Appellant seeks concurrent sentences under Section 427, CrPC based on duration of imprisonment and conduct; State contends separate transactions necessitate consecutive sentences. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. Sentences for separate transactions and trials normally run consecutively unless specifically ordered otherwise; discretion under Section 427, CrPC must be exercised judiciously considering offence severity. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. Under Section 427(1), CrPC, subsequent sentences run consecutively unless the court directs concurrency, especially where offences arise from different transactions and crime numbers. (Para 9 )
5. Appeal dismissed; sentences for the separate NDPS Act offences shall run consecutively. (Para 12 )
6. What is the general rule regarding subsequent sentences of imprisonment under Section 427(1) of the CrPC?
The general rule is that a subsequent sentence of imprisonment commences at the expiration of the previous sentence, meaning they run consecutively, unless the court specifically directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous one. (Para 9 )
7. Can concurrent sentences be awarded under Section 427 of the CrPC when convictions relate to different transactions?
Ordinarily, where there are different transactions, different crime numbers, and cases decided by different judgments, concurrent sentences cannot be awarded. However, the court may exercise its discretion to order concurrency based on the nature of the offence and the specific fact situation. (Para 9 , 10 )
8. How should the court exercise its discretion under Section 427 of the CrPC in cases involving the NDPS Act?
Discretion must be exercised judiciously. Given the serious nature of narcotic drug trafficking and its deadly impact on society, discretion should not be exercised in favor of the accused to allow concurrent sentences. (Para 11 )
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
