2017 (1) TMI 1576 - SC - Indian Laws

Application seeking Direction to treat sentence imposed relating to two different complaints to run concurrently - Held that - Whether or not the discretion is to be exercised in directing sentences to run concurrently would depend upon the nature of the offence/offences and the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the appellant was earlier convicted under Section 22 NDPS Act and subsequently convicted under Section 27(b)(ii) and Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Considering the nature of the offences for which the appellant was convicted and the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed appropriate to direct that the sentences imposed on the appellant in FIR No.37 and Complaint No.638 shall run concurrently - the fine amount and the default sentence or sentences are maintained. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application seeking direction to treat sentences imposed on the appellant to run concurrently was declined by the High Court.
2. Interpretation of Section 427 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) regarding ordering concurrent sentences.
3. Exercise of discretion by the Court in directing sentences to run concurrently based on judicial principles.
4. Comparison with previous cases like V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana and Benson v. State of Kerala for ordering concurrent sentences.
5. Decision on whether the sentences imposed on the appellant in different cases should run concurrently.

Analysis:
1. The appeal stemmed from the High Court's order rejecting the appellant's application to treat sentences from two separate convictions to run concurrently. The appellant was initially convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and later under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, seeking concurrent sentences for both.

2. The Court delved into the interpretation of Section 427 of the Cr.P.C., which provides discretionary power to order concurrent sentences. The section specifies that subsequent imprisonment typically starts after the previous sentence ends, unless directed otherwise by the Court, emphasizing the discretionary nature of such directions.

3. Emphasizing the discretionary nature of ordering concurrent sentences, the Court highlighted the need for sound judicial principles rather than a mechanical approach. The decision to run sentences concurrently hinges on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, considering the nature of the offenses involved.

4. Drawing parallels with previous cases like V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana and Benson v. State of Kerala, the Court underscored the importance of exercising discretion judiciously. These cases provided guidance on the exercise of discretion in directing sentences to run concurrently based on the nature of offenses and factual context.

5. Ultimately, after evaluating the nature of the offenses and circumstances of the case, the Court decided to direct that the sentences imposed on the appellant in the two cases should run concurrently. However, it was clarified that the fine amount and default sentences would be maintained, with default sentences running consecutively if the fines were not paid.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ordering the substantive sentences imposed on the appellant to run concurrently, while maintaining the fine amount and default sentences.