Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Abidkhan @ Salman Mukhtar Khan Pathan, was convicted in three separate criminal cases (C.C. Nos.664/PW/2011, 665/PW/2011, and 666/PW/2011) for offences under Sections 379, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The incidents occurred on 25th November 2010, 5th January 2011, and 29th August 2009, involving distinct transactions. The petitioner pleaded guilty voluntarily on 11th June 2012 and sought leniency citing his poor family background. The trial court imposed sentences in each case, ordering them to run consecutively. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking a direction to modify the sentences to run concurrently. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that Section 427(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, does not mandate that sentences for distinct transactions must run concurrently. The trial court had exercised its discretion properly in ordering consecutive sentences. The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Sentencing - Concurrency of Sentences - Section 427(1) CrPC - The petitioner, convicted in three separate cases for offences under Sections 379, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 420 read with 34 IPC arising from distinct transactions on different dates, sought modification of sentences to run concurrently. The High Court held that Section 427(1) CrPC does not mandate concurrency for distinct transactions and that the trial court's discretion to order consecutive sentences was justified. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sentences imposed on the petitioner in three separate criminal cases for distinct offences should be directed to run concurrently under Section 427(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged.
Law Points
- Section 427(1) CrPC
- consecutive sentences
- concurrent sentences
- discretion of trial court
- distinct transactions
- multiple convictions
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (07) 108
Criminal Writ Petition No.1437 of 2013
S.C. Dharmadhikari, S.B. Shukre
Mr. A. Karim Pathan for the petitioner, Mrs. A.S. Pai for the State
Abidkhan @ Salman Mukhtar Khan Pathan
State of Maharashtra, The Superintendent, Yerwada Prison, Pune
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition seeking modification of sentences to run concurrently.
Remedy Sought
Direction to modify the orders of sentences given on conviction in three distinct cases so that the sentences in subsequent cases are made to run concurrently along with the previous sentences.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was convicted in three separate cases for offences under IPC and sentenced to consecutive terms; he sought concurrency.
Previous Decisions
The trial court convicted the petitioner in C.C. Nos.664/PW/2011, 665/PW/2011, and 666/PW/2011 and imposed consecutive sentences.
Issues
Whether the sentences imposed in three separate cases for distinct transactions should run concurrently under Section 427(1) CrPC.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner submitted that he hailed from a poor family and his family members were dependent upon him, praying for leniency in sentencing.
The State opposed the petition, arguing that the offences were distinct and the trial court had discretion to order consecutive sentences.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 427(1) CrPC does not mandate that sentences for distinct transactions must run concurrently; the trial court has discretion to order consecutive sentences, and such discretion was properly exercised in this case.
Judgment Excerpts
In this Petition, the petitioner seeks direction to modify the orders of his sentences given on conviction in three distinct and separate cases so that the sentences in subsequent cases are made to run concurrently along with the previous sentences.
Procedural History
The petitioner was convicted in three separate criminal cases (C.C. Nos.664/PW/2011, 665/PW/2011, and 666/PW/2011) by the trial court. He pleaded guilty on 11th June 2012. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences. The petitioner then filed Criminal Writ Petition No.1437 of 2013 before the Bombay High Court seeking concurrency. The petition was heard finally at the admission stage with consent and dismissed on 22nd July 2013.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 379, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 420, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 427(1)
