Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2016 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 1483 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - concurrent running of sentences in two different cases - Whether the High Court exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can invoke Section 427 Cr.P.C. and order that sentences awarded in two different cases shall run concurrently? - HELD THAT - The reference so made is essentially based on the judgment given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.R. Kudva v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2006 (12) TMI 578 - SUPREME COURT . Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case was adjudicating an order passed by the High Court on an application preferred under Section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In the case aforesaid a bank employee was subjected to trial for two criminal cases and was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B/420, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code read with Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. In both the cases learned trial court opined that the accused did not deserve any sympathy and deserves to undergo sentence consecutively. This fact indicates that the trial court examined the issue with regard to exercise of discretion as per Section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure and further the conviction recorded and sentence imposed remained intact up till the highest court. An application subsequently was preferred to have an order for undergoing sentence concurrently. True it is, in the case of SUNDARAM VERSUS THE SECRETARY, STATE OF TAMIL NADU, HOME DEPARTMENT AND ORS. 2014 (1) TMI 1919 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , the Division Bench of Madras High Court held that the order passed by Single Bench of that Court was per incuriam because that ignored the mandate of Section 427(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, but at the same time invoked inherent powers of High Court to meet the ends of justice and also to untied the Gordian knot to release the prisoner from a legal mess. The court while doing so also observed about availability of remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of the grievances of aggrieved person and to secure ends of justice. As per Section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure, in normal course a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, if sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such imprisonment commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, but the court in its discretion based on settled principles may direct that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with previous sentence. While exercising such discretion, the trial court, appellate court or revisional court, as the case may be, keeps in mind several factors. While examining such factors, the possibility of some error cannot be ruled out - The inherent jurisdiction is having a very large amplitude but should always be exercised cautiously and only to prevent miscarriage of justice. While keeping in mind that the inherent powers must be exercised sparingly, the court should not restrain itself to invoke the same if any injury is caused to the justice. To meet the ends of justice and to rectify the gross error the powers under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised, if court arrives at a conclusion that the trial court, appellate court or the revisional court, as the case may be, failed in completing the circuit of justice while invoking/not invoking the discretion vested with it as per Section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure. The court while doing so must keep in mind all necessary ingredients and precedents which are to be taken into consideration to exercise the discretion as per Section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure. The reference made by learned Single Bench is answered accordingly. Let the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions be listed before learned Single Bench for their adjudication on merits.
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.
|