Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Navnit Madhukar Naik and his wife Priya Navnit Naik, were convicted in three criminal cases: Regular Criminal Case No. 105 of 2011 (offences under Sections 420, 380 read with Section 34 IPC), and two other cases. In each case, they were sentenced to imprisonment, with the trial court directing that the sentences run consecutively. The petitioners filed applications (Civil Application No. 626 of 2012 and 648 of 2012) in the High Court of Bombay, praying that the sentences be directed to run concurrently instead of consecutively. They argued that they belong to a very poor family, have a dependent minor son aged about six years, and that Navnit's father suffers from high blood pressure and diabetes while his mother suffers from short-sightedness. Navnit is the sole breadwinner, and the family is facing difficulties in earning a livelihood. The education of their son is also adversely affected. The court considered the submissions and the record. The court noted that the maximum sentence imposed in any of the cases was only eighteen months, and the trial court had already directed that sentences in one case run concurrently. The court exercised its discretion under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and allowed the applications, directing that all sentences of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners in the three cases shall run concurrently from the date of their first conviction. The rule was made absolute accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Concurrent Sentences - Section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Discretion to order concurrent running of sentences - Petitioners convicted in three cases and sentenced to imprisonment - Trial court directed sentences to run consecutively - Petitioners sought concurrent running due to poverty, dependent minor child, and aged parents with health issues - Court allowed the application, directing that all sentences shall run concurrently from the date of first conviction - Held that the court has discretion under Section 427 CrPC to order sentences to run concurrently to avoid undue hardship (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sentences of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners in three separate criminal cases should run concurrently or consecutively, considering the hardship to their family.
Final Decision
The court allowed the applications and directed that all sentences of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners in the three cases shall run concurrently from the date of their first conviction. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Concurrent vs consecutive sentences
- Section 427 CrPC
- discretion of court
- hardship to family
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (02) 62
Criminal Writ Petition No. 3462 of 2012 with Civil Application No. 626 of 2012 and Civil Application No. 648 of 2012
Mr. Arfan Sai for the Petitioners, Mrs. S.D. Shinde, A.P.P. for the State
Navnit Madhukar Naik and Priya Navnit Naik
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition seeking direction for concurrent running of sentences in multiple criminal cases.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought that the sentences of imprisonment imposed in three separate criminal cases be directed to run concurrently instead of consecutively.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were convicted in three criminal cases and sentenced to imprisonment, with the trial court directing the sentences to run consecutively. They sought concurrent running due to poverty, dependent minor child, and aged parents with health issues.
Previous Decisions
The petitioners were convicted in Regular Criminal Case No. 105 of 2011 and two other cases. The trial court imposed sentences and directed them to run consecutively.
Issues
Whether the sentences of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners in three separate criminal cases should run concurrently or consecutively.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they belong to a very poor family, have a dependent minor son aged about six years, and that Navnit's father suffers from high blood pressure and diabetes while his mother suffers from short-sightedness. Navnit is the sole breadwinner, and the family is facing difficulties. The education of their son is adversely affected.
State opposed the application.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the court has discretion to order that sentences of imprisonment imposed on a convicted person in separate trials run concurrently, especially to avoid undue hardship to the convict and their family.
Judgment Excerpts
By application no 626 of 2012 and 648 of 2012 the applicants convict Navnit Madhukar Naik and his wife Sau Priya Navnit Naik prayed for concurrent running of sentences instead of consecutive sentences in all three cases in which they were convicted on the ground that they belong to very poor family having a dependant minor Son aged about six years old...
The facts are admitted and the petitioners were convicted in three criminal cases.
In the result, the applications are allowed. The sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioners in all the three cases shall run concurrently from the date of their first conviction.
Procedural History
The petitioners were convicted in three criminal cases by the Judicial Magistrate F.C., Igatpuri. They filed Civil Application No. 626 of 2012 and 648 of 2012 in the High Court of Bombay seeking concurrent running of sentences. The High Court heard the matter and pronounced judgment on 15/02/2013.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 420, 380, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 427
