Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sanket Gupta, was convicted under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for theft in two separate criminal cases: Regular Criminal Case No. 81/2015 and Regular Criminal Case No. 67/2015. He pleaded guilty in both cases, and the trial court sentenced him to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 in each case, both judgments dated 15/9/2015. The trial court did not specify whether the sentences were to run concurrently or consecutively. The petitioner filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court at Nagpur, seeking a direction that both sentences run concurrently. The petitioner argued that the trial court failed to consider Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which empowers the court to order concurrent sentences. The State opposed the petition, contending that the trial court had the discretion and that the sentences should run consecutively. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that Section 427 CrPC gives the court discretion to order sentences to run concurrently, especially when the accused has pleaded guilty and the offences are of a similar nature. The court noted that the trial court had not exercised its discretion under Section 427 CrPC, and therefore, the High Court could do so in its writ jurisdiction. The court allowed the petition, directing that the sentences in both cases run concurrently. The petitioner was already in custody, and the court ordered his release if not required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Concurrent Sentences - Section 427 CrPC - Discretion of Court - Petitioner convicted under Section 379 IPC in two separate cases and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment in each - Trial court did not specify whether sentences to run concurrently or consecutively - Held that the court has discretion under Section 427 CrPC to order sentences to run concurrently, especially when the accused pleaded guilty in both cases and the offences are of similar nature - Sentences directed to run concurrently (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sentences awarded to the petitioner in two separate criminal cases for the same offence under Section 379 IPC should run concurrently under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition and directed that the sentences of rigorous imprisonment for two years awarded to the petitioner in Regular Criminal Case No. 81/2015 and Regular Criminal Case No. 67/2015 shall run concurrently. The petitioner was ordered to be released if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Section 427 CrPC
- concurrent sentences
- discretion of court
- plea of guilt
- Section 379 IPC
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (08) 163
Criminal Writ Petition No. 858 of 2016
Ms. Sonali Sawre for petitioner; Ms. H. Jaipurkar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents
State of Maharashtra, through the Hon'ble Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 440 032; The Superintendent, Nagpur Central Jail, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking direction for concurrent running of sentences.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a direction that the sentences of two years' rigorous imprisonment awarded in two separate criminal cases be directed to run concurrently.
Filing Reason
The trial court did not specify whether the sentences in two cases were to run concurrently or consecutively, and the petitioner sought the benefit of Section 427 CrPC.
Previous Decisions
The trial court convicted the petitioner in Regular Criminal Case No. 81/2015 and Regular Criminal Case No. 67/2015 on 15/9/2015, sentencing him to two years' rigorous imprisonment and fine in each case, without specifying concurrency.
Issues
Whether the sentences awarded in two separate criminal cases for the same offence under Section 379 IPC should run concurrently under Section 427 CrPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the trial court failed to consider Section 427 CrPC and committed an error by not directing the sentences to run concurrently, especially since he pleaded guilty in both cases.
Respondent State opposed, contending that the trial court had discretion and the sentences should run consecutively.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the court has discretion to order that sentences in different cases run concurrently, especially when the accused has pleaded guilty and the offences are of a similar nature. The trial court's failure to exercise this discretion can be corrected by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
By invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner having been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code initially in Regular Criminal Case No.81/2015 and thereafter for the same offence in Regular Criminal Case No.67/2015 and awarded punishment of two years, has prayed that both the sentences awarded to him be directed to run concurrently.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the trial Court has not exercised its discretion under Section 427 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, this Court can exercise its discretion in the present petition.
Procedural History
The petitioner was convicted and sentenced in two separate criminal cases on 15/9/2015. He then filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 858 of 2016 before the Bombay High Court at Nagpur, which was heard and finally disposed of on 2/8/2017.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 379
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 427
- Constitution of India: 226
