Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kuttu @ Rahul Chhahalal Pardhi, a convict undergoing imprisonment in three different crimes, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court seeking directions for concurrent running of sentences under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced in three cases: (i) Reg. Cri. Case No. 50/2015 for offences under Sections 51(1), 39(1)(d), 39(3) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Section 120B IPC, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine; (ii) Reg. Cri. Case No. 10/2015 for offences under Sections 51 read with 2(16) and 52 of the Act of 1972 and Section 26(1)(d)(h) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine; (iii) Reg. Cri. Case No. 51/2015 for similar offences, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine. The petitioner had already undergone imprisonment of about 3 years and 7 months. The court noted that the offences arose from separate transactions but considered the totality of the sentence and the petitioner's background as a poor farmer. The court held that the discretion under Section 427 CrPC can be exercised to avoid excessive punishment and directed that the sentences in all three cases shall run concurrently. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Concurrent Sentences - Section 427 CrPC - Discretion of Court - Petitioner convicted in three separate cases under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Court held that though the offences arose from separate transactions, considering the totality of the sentence and the fact that the petitioner is a poor farmer, it would be just and proper to direct the sentences to run concurrently - Held that the discretion under Section 427 CrPC can be exercised to avoid excessive punishment (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sentences of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner in three different cases should be directed to run concurrently under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner in Reg. Cri. Case No. 50/2015, Reg. Cri. Case No. 10/2015, and Reg. Cri. Case No. 51/2015 shall run concurrently. Rule is made absolute.
Law Points
- Section 427 CrPC
- concurrent sentences
- discretion of court
- separate transactions
- totality of sentence
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (01) 91
Criminal Writ Petition No. 703 of 2019
Sunil B. Shukre, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
Shri M.N. Ali h/f Shri R.R. Vyas for petitioner; Shri M.K. Pathan, A.P.P. for respondents
Kuttu @ Rahul Chhahalal Pardhi
State of Maharashtra, Assistant Forest Conservator, Bhandara; Assistant Conservator of Forest, Logging Officer, Gadegao Depot; Conservator of Forest, Wadsa Forest Division
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Writ Petition seeking direction for concurrent running of sentences under Section 427 CrPC.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a direction that the sentences of imprisonment in three different cases be run concurrently.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was convicted and sentenced in three separate cases and wanted the sentences to run concurrently to avoid excessive imprisonment.
Previous Decisions
Petitioner was convicted by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pauni in Reg. Cri. Case No. 50/2015 on 18/04/2017; by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Desaiganj in Reg. Cri. Case No. 10/2015 on 05/05/2017; and in Reg. Cri. Case No. 51/2015 (date not specified).
Issues
Whether the sentences in three separate cases should be directed to run concurrently under Section 427 CrPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he is a poor farmer and has already undergone imprisonment of about 3 years and 7 months, and that the sentences should run concurrently.
Respondents opposed the petition, but the court considered the totality of the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court has discretion under Section 427 CrPC to direct sentences to run concurrently even if the offences arise from separate transactions, especially when the total sentence would be excessive and the convict is a poor farmer. The court considered the totality of the sentence and the period already undergone.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner, a convict, who is undergoing sentence of imprisonment in three different crimes, is seeking directions for concurrent running of sentences under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Considering the totality of the sentence and the fact that the petitioner is a poor farmer, we are of the opinion that the discretion under Section 427 of the Code can be exercised in favour of the petitioner.
The sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner in all the three cases shall run concurrently.
Procedural History
The petitioner was convicted in three separate cases by different Judicial Magistrate First Class courts. He filed the present Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court seeking concurrent running of sentences. The petition was heard and finally disposed of by the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 427
- Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: 51(1), 39(1)(d), 39(3), 2(16), 52
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 120B
- Indian Forest Act, 1927: 26(1)(d)(h)
