Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Syed Moula, filed a criminal petition under Section 482 read with Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking an order for concurrent running of sentences imposed in four separate criminal cases: C.C.No.29832/2010, C.C.No.10405/2015, C.C.No.8630/2015, and C.C.No.10421/2015, all pending on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. The petitioner was arraigned as Accused No.5 in C.C.No.29832/2010 for offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and as Accused No.1 in the other three cases for offences under Section 379 of IPC. The petitioner had been convicted and sentenced in each case, and he sought that the sentences run concurrently. The court, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents, and considering the facts and circumstances, including that the offences were not of a grave nature and the petitioner had already undergone a substantial portion of the sentence, allowed the petition. The court directed that the sentences in all four cases shall run concurrently, exercising its discretion under Section 427 CrPC. The order was made on 29 June 2021.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Concurrent Sentences - Section 427 CrPC - Discretion of Court - Petitioner convicted in four separate cases sought concurrent running of sentences - Court held that Section 427 CrPC gives discretion to order sentences to run concurrently if the court considers it just and proper - Considering the totality of circumstances, including that the offences were not of grave nature and the petitioner had already undergone substantial sentence, the court directed that the sentences in all four cases shall run concurrently (Paras 1-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sentences imposed on the petitioner in four separate criminal 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 imposed on the petitioner in C.C.No.29832/2010, C.C.No.10405/2015, C.C.No.8630/2015, and C.C.No.10421/2015 shall run concurrently.
Law Points
- Concurrent running of sentences
- Section 427 CrPC
- discretion of court
- multiple convictions
- separate trials
Case Details
2021 LawText (KAR) (06) 46
Criminal Petition No. 7911 of 2020
Sri. Salman for Sri. Anees Ali Khan (for petitioner), Sri. Rahul Rai K, HCGP (for respondents)
State by Chennammanakere Achukattu Police Station and Tilak Nagar Police Station
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition under Section 482 read with Section 427 CrPC seeking concurrent running of sentences in multiple cases.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought an order for concurrent running of sentences imposed in four separate criminal cases.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was convicted in four separate cases and sought that the sentences run concurrently.
Issues
Whether the sentences in multiple cases should run concurrently under Section 427 CrPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the offences were not grave and he had already undergone substantial sentence, thus concurrent running was just and proper.
Respondent State opposed the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 427 CrPC confers discretion on the court to order that sentences in multiple cases run concurrently if it considers it just and proper, especially when the offences are not grave and the accused has already undergone substantial sentence.
Judgment Excerpts
In this petition, petitioner/accused is seeking to order for concurrent running of sentence in C.C.No.29832/2010, C.C.No.10405/2015, C.C.No.8630/2015 and C.C.No.10421/2015 on the file of the II Addl.CMM, Bengaluru, by urging various grounds.
The petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.5 in C.C.No.29832/2010 for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC.
Further, the petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.1 in C.C.No.10405/2015 for the offence under Section 379 of IPC.
The petitioner is also arraigned as Accused No.1 in C.C.No.8630/2015 for the offence under Section 379 of IPC.
The petitioner is also arraigned as Accused No.1 in C.C.No.10421/2015 for the offence under Section 379 of IPC.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondents, this court is of the considered opinion that the petition is liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
The sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.No.29832/2010, C.C.No.10405/2015, C.C.No.8630/2015 and C.C.No.10421/2015 shall run concurrently.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Criminal Petition No. 7911 of 2020 under Section 482 read with Section 427 CrPC before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. The matter was taken up for admission and with consent of both sides, heard finally. The court allowed the petition on 29 June 2021.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 427, Section 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 379, Section 380, Section 457
