2015 (1) TMI 1480 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of sentences awarded to the Appellant - undelivered parcel containing Gold Chain by post office - theft or not - offences punishable Under Sections 381 and 419 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 52 of the IPO Act - whether the sentences awarded to the Appellant under Indian Penal Code and the IPO Act should run concurrently or consecutively ? - HELD THAT - The expressions concurrently and consecutively mentioned in the Code are of immense significance while awarding punishment to the accused once he is found guilty of any offence punishable under Indian Penal Code or/and of an offence punishable under any other Special Act arising out of one trial or more. It is for the reason that award of former enure to the benefit of accused whereas award of latter is detrimental to the accused's interest. It is, therefore, legally obligatory upon the Court of first instance while awarding sentence to specify in clear terms in the order of conviction as to whether sentence awarded to the accused would run concurrently or they would run consecutively . The issue as to in which circumstances the Court should direct the sentences to run concurrently or consecutively after the accused is convicted of more than one offence in one trial or more has been the subject matter of several cases in this Court and thus remains no more res integra. This issue was considered by this Court while considering the scope of Sections 31, 427 and 428 of the Code and Section 71 of Indian Penal Code. Reliance placed in the decision of this Court in Chatar Singh v. State of M.P. 2006 (11) TMI 714 - SUPREME COURT and State of Punjab v. Madan Lal 2009 (3) TMI 912 - SUPREME COURT , and lastly recently in Manoj @ Panu v. State of Haryana 2013 (12) TMI 1732 - SUPREME COURT , wherein this Court taking recourse to Section 31 of the Code directed in somewhat similar facts that the sentences awarded to the accused to run concurrently in place of consecutively . Thus, in the light of powers available Under Section 31 of the Code, it can be held that both the sentences awarded to the Appellant in the case at hand should run concurrently and this is done by invoking Section 31 which enables the Court to so direct. This is a fit case where we can direct the sentences awarded to the Appellant to run concurrently for the reasons that firstly, the case out of which this appeal arises relates to the year 1993 and is pending for a long period of 21 years; secondly, the two sentences, which were imposed on the Appellant, arose out of one offence of theft punishable Under Section 381 Indian Penal Code tried in one trial; thirdly, the provisions of Section 52 of the IPO Act were required to be invoked against the Appellant because he was the postal employee; fourthly, the Gold Chain was long recovered and also handed over to the person concerned; fifthly, the Appellant has already been dismissed from services due to impugned conviction; and lastly, the Appellant has been suffering from heart ailment since long, as is proved by documents filed along with the Appellant's affidavit 03.11.2014. The conviction and sentences awarded to the Appellant by the courts below for the offences punishable Under Section 381 of Indian Penal Code and Section 52 of the IPO Act are upheld. However, it is directed that both the sentences awarded to the Appellant under Indian Penal Code and IPO Act would run concurrently - Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and correctness of the conviction and sentence.
2. Whether the sentences awarded under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Indian Post Office Act (IPO Act) should run "concurrently" or "consecutively".

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Correctness of the Conviction and Sentence:
The appellant, a Sorting Assistant at the Bangalore Packet Sorting Office, was convicted for theft of a registered insured parcel containing a gold chain. The parcel, sent from Bombay to Bangalore, was stolen while in transit. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the appellant under Section 381 of the IPC and Section 52 of the IPO Act, sentencing him to six months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- for each offence, to be served consecutively. The appellant's conviction was upheld by the XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and the High Court of Karnataka. The appellant did not challenge the conviction itself but contested the consecutive nature of the sentences.

2. Concurrent vs. Consecutive Sentences:
The appellant argued that the sentences should run concurrently, citing Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allows the court to direct sentences to run concurrently when a person is convicted of multiple offences in one trial. The appellant's counsel emphasized that both offences arose from a single act of theft and should be treated as one transaction, thus meriting concurrent sentences. The appellant's advanced age, heart ailment, and dismissal from service were also highlighted as factors warranting concurrent sentences.

The court agreed with the appellant's arguments, noting that the expressions "concurrently" and "consecutively" are significant in sentencing, as concurrent sentences benefit the accused while consecutive sentences do not. The court referenced several precedents, including *Mohd. Akhtar Hussain @ Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti v. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad and Anr.* (1988) and *State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali* (2001), which supported the principle of concurrent sentences for offences arising from a single transaction.

The court concluded that the sentences should run concurrently, considering the long pendency of the case, the single act of theft leading to the convictions, the recovery of the stolen gold chain, the appellant's dismissal from service, and his health condition. The court invoked Section 31 of the CrPC to direct that both sentences run concurrently, thus partially allowing the appeal.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 381 IPC and Section 52 of the IPO Act but directed that the sentences run concurrently. Consequently, if the appellant had already served the sentence, he was to be released forthwith, provided he was not required in connection with any other case.