Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Azgarkhan @ Yanna and Fayaz @ Fayyu, were convicted by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira, in three separate cases (C.C. Nos. 275/2014, 276/2014, and 277/2014) vide judgment dated 24.02.2015. They were charged with offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The trial court sentenced them to simple imprisonment for three years under Section 457 IPC and two years under Section 380 IPC in each case. The sentences were directed to run consecutively. The petitioners filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking an order that the sentences in all three cases run concurrently. The facts reveal that on the night of 04.08.2013 at about 1:00 am, the petitioners broke open the locks of two shops, namely R.S. Communications and M/s. Sri. Siddi Vinayaka Jewelry shop, and stole mobile phones worth Rs.12,500/- and other items. The offences were committed in the course of the same transaction. The High Court, after hearing the counsel for the petitioners and the High Court Government Pleader, observed that the charges in all three cases were common and the offences were committed on the same night. The court held that to avoid excessive incarceration, the sentences should run concurrently. Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and it was directed that the sentences in all three cases shall run concurrently. The court also directed that the petitioners be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Concurrent Sentences - Section 427 Cr.P.C. - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Petitioners convicted in three separate cases for offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC arising from a single night of criminal activity - Court held that since the offences were committed in the course of the same transaction, the sentences should run concurrently to prevent undue hardship - Petition allowed and sentences directed to run concurrently (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sentences imposed on the petitioners in three separate criminal cases should run concurrently under Section 427 Cr.P.C. to avoid excessive incarceration.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The sentences imposed on the petitioners in C.C. Nos. 275/2014, 276/2014, and 277/2014 shall run concurrently. The petitioners shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Section 482 Cr.P.C.
- Section 427 Cr.P.C.
- concurrent sentences
- Section 457 IPC
- Section 380 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (11) 29
Criminal Petition No. 3548/2019
Sri. Sirajuddin Ahmed (for petitioners), Sri. R.D. Renukaradhya (HCGP for respondent)
Azgarkhan @ Yanna and Fayaz @ Fayyu
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking direction for concurrent running of sentences in three separate conviction cases.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought an order that the sentences in all three cases (C.C. Nos. 275/2014, 276/2014, 277/2014) shall run concurrently.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in three separate cases for offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC, and the sentences were directed to run consecutively, causing excessive incarceration.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted petitioners on 24.02.2015 and sentenced them to simple imprisonment for three years under Section 457 IPC and two years under Section 380 IPC in each case, with sentences to run consecutively.
Issues
Whether the sentences in three separate criminal cases arising from the same transaction should run concurrently under Section 427 Cr.P.C.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the offences were committed in the course of the same transaction and thus sentences should run concurrently to avoid excessive incarceration.
Respondent State opposed the petition, but the court found merit in the petitioners' submission.
Ratio Decidendi
Where an accused is convicted in multiple cases arising from the same transaction, the court may, under Section 427 Cr.P.C., direct that the sentences run concurrently to prevent excessive incarceration, especially when the offences are committed in a single spree of criminal activity.
Judgment Excerpts
Both the petitioners are convicts having been convicted by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira by judgment and order dated 24.02.2015 in C.C. Nos. 275/2014, 276/2014 and 277/2014.
In all the three cases the charges levelled against the petitioners are common, i.e., for offences punishable under Section 457 and 380 IPC.
The complaint against the petitioners is that on the night of 04.08.2013 at about 01.00 am they have broken open the lock of the shops...
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that the sentences in all the three cases shall run concurrently.
Procedural History
The petitioners were convicted by the trial court on 24.02.2015 in three separate cases. They then filed the present criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court seeking concurrent running of sentences.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): Section 482, Section 427
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Section 457, Section 380, Section 34
