Case Note & Summary
The judgment involves two criminal petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking directions to run multiple sentences concurrently. The first petitioner, Ambarish S Kapadia, was convicted in six different cases (Spl.C.C.No.18/1987, Spl.C.C.No.128/1993, C.C.No.1943/1987, C.C.No.6567/1989, C.C.No.6568/1989, and another) and sought concurrent running of sentences. The second petitioner, Rama @ Ramaiah, was convicted in two cases (Crl.A.No.2241/2006 and Crl.A.No.737/2013) and sought the same relief. The moot question was whether the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC, could order substantive sentences from multiple convictions in different cases to run concurrently. The court noted that Section 427 CrPC deals with sentences in cases of multiple convictions, providing that sentences shall run consecutively unless the court directs them to run concurrently. However, the court held that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC is available to secure the ends of justice and can be invoked to direct concurrent running of sentences even after conviction, especially when the sentences are from different trials and no specific order was passed regarding concurrency. The court allowed both petitions, directing that the sentences imposed in the respective cases shall run concurrently.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Inherent Powers - Section 482 CrPC - Concurrent Sentences - The court considered whether it can order sentences from multiple convictions in different cases to run concurrently under Section 482 CrPC. Held that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to direct concurrent running of sentences even after conviction, to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. (Paras 3, 10-12) B) Criminal Procedure - Sentencing - Section 427 CrPC - Concurrent vs Consecutive Sentences - The court examined the scope of Section 427 CrPC which deals with sentences in cases of multiple convictions. Held that while the trial court has discretion under Section 427(1) to order concurrent or consecutive sentences, the High Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to modify the order to run sentences concurrently in appropriate cases. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether substantive sentences running consecutively due to multiple convictions in different cases could be ordered to run concurrently by this Court, in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
Both criminal petitions are allowed. The sentences imposed in the respective cases shall run concurrently.
Law Points
- Section 482 CrPC
- inherent powers
- concurrent sentences
- consecutive sentences
- multiple convictions
