2018 (4) TMI 1544 - HC - Customs

Concurrence of the sentence awarded in the original complaint case u/s 135 of the Customs Act along with the sentence undergone by him following his second conviction - case of petitioner is that he was not released on bail or parole in either of the cases post-conviction - Held that - the prayer of the petitioner appears to be justified and in order, since it is a matter of record that his conviction is not in two separate cases under the NDPS Act alone - As such, he is found to be entitled to the concurrence of the sentences awarded to him in the first as well as the second complaint cases - prayer allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Concurrent running of sentences in two separate criminal trials under Section 427 of the Cr.P.C.

Analysis:
The petitioner, convicted in two separate criminal trials, sought to run the sentences concurrently. In the first case, he was convicted under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The appeal and revision against this conviction were dismissed. The petitioner had already served over three years and nine months in this case by 2017, considering remission. In the second case under the NDPS Act, he was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The appeal against this conviction was dismissed, and no further challenge was made. The petitioner had already served the sentence in the NDPS Act case by 2017. Since he was not released on bail or parole post-conviction in either case, he requested the concurrent running of sentences.

The petitioner relied on the case of "Anil Kumar v. State of Punjab" where the Supreme Court allowed concurrent running of sentences in two separate cases. The Court directed that sentences in FIR No. 37 and Complaint No. 638 should run concurrently, maintaining the fine amount and default sentences consecutively if the fine is not paid. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently, and the appeal was allowed. Considering this precedent, the petitioner's request for concurrent sentences in his two cases was deemed justified. As his convictions were not solely under the NDPS Act, he was entitled to the concurrence of sentences in both cases.

In light of the above, the Court allowed the petitioner's prayer for concurrent running of sentences. The sentence in the Customs Act case, for which he was currently imprisoned, would be treated as operative from the date of his conviction. He would be released after completing the concurrent sentence unless required in connection with another case. The petition was disposed of accordingly.