Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2016 (1) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (1) TMI 1483 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to invoke Section 427 Cr.P.C. and order that sentences awarded in two different cases shall run concurrently.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C.:
The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are intended to prevent abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of justice. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. emphasized that Section 482 is an overriding provision that safeguards the existing inherent powers of the High Court. It should be exercised sparingly and not against the express bar of law. The power is broad but requires great caution and circumspection.

2. Application of Section 427 Cr.P.C.:
Section 427 Cr.P.C. generally mandates that sentences for subsequent convictions commence after the expiration of the previous sentence unless the court directs otherwise. The discretion to order concurrent sentences lies with the trial, appellate, or revisional court. The Supreme Court in M.R. Kudva v. State of Andhra Pradesh held that the High Court could not use its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 to order concurrent sentences if it had not done so while passing the judgment in appeal.

3. Judicial Precedents and Interpretation:
- The Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Jang Singh v. State of Punjab laid down that the discretion to make sentences concurrent is governed by various factors such as the nature of the offenses, criminal history, and other relevant considerations. It emphasized that the normal rule under Section 427 Cr.P.C. is consecutive sentences, with concurrency being an exception.
- The Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Mulaim Singh v. State concluded that if a court fails to consider concurrent sentences, the High Court can rectify this under its inherent powers to prevent injustice.
- The Madras High Court in Sundaram alias Vellian v. The Secretary, State of T.N., held that Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. mandates concurrent sentences for life imprisonment, and this legislative guarantee cannot be denied by the courts or jail authorities.

4. High Court's Inherent Powers:
The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to rectify errors or omissions by the trial, appellate, or revisional courts regarding concurrent sentences. This is to ensure fair and objective treatment and to prevent miscarriage of justice. The High Court must exercise these powers cautiously and only when necessary to secure the ends of justice.

Conclusion:
The High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to order that sentences in two different cases run concurrently if it finds that the trial, appellate, or revisional court failed to consider this discretion properly. This exercise of power is to rectify gross errors and to meet the ends of justice, ensuring that the judicial process does not result in injustice.

Order:
The reference made by the learned Single Bench is answered affirmatively, and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are to be adjudicated on merits by the learned Single Bench.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates