9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 845 of 2008. 3. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. 4. The Appellant-accused, at the relevant time, (1.3.1992 to 11.3.1993) was working as Sorting Assistant in Bangalore Packet Sorting Office, Head Record Office (Main Unit) at Bangalore. On the intervening night between 05.03.1993 and 06.03.1993, the Appellant-accused while on duty committed theft of a registered insured parcel bearing receipt No. 0127 dated 03.03.1993 containing Gold Chain (V shape) weighing 173.650 Grams worth Rs. 70,410/- which was sent by its owner from Ramavadi Post Office, Bombay for being delivered to the consignee-Gulab Jewellery Shop at K.H.B. Road Post Office, Bangalore. The parcel thus could not be delivered to the party concerned though reached to Bangalore post office. 5. Mr. M.N. Narasimha Murthy-Assistant Superintendent of Bags (PW-1) in the office of Chief Post Master General of Karnataka, on coming to know of the missing of parcel and commission of the theft of the parcel, immediately lodged a complaint (Ex-P-1) in the High Grounds Police Station. The complaint was accordingly investigated which revealed complicity of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed the revision and in consequence upheld the conviction and sentences awarded to the Appellant. It is against this order, the Appellant-accused has filed this appeal by way of special leave. 9. While assailing the legality and correctness of the impugned order, learned Counsel for the Appellant urged only one point. Learned Counsel, however, did not question the legality and correctness of the conviction on its merit and confined his challenge only to the sentences awarded to the Appellant. According to him, the Courts below erred in not directing both the sentences awarded to the Appellant, i.e., the one awarded Under Section 381 Indian Penal Code and the other awarded Under Section 52 of the IPO Act to run concurrently . It was his submission that since both the offences which resulted in Appellant's conviction under two different Acts (Indian Penal Code and IPO Act) were tried in one trial and arose out of one act namely- theft , this was a fit case where the Courts below should have directed both the sentences to run concurrently . Learned Counsel pointed out that in every case of this nature, it is the duty of the Court to specifically mention in the order of convic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt may, subject to the provisions of Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), sentence him for such offences, to the several punishments prescribed therefor which such Court is competent to inflict; such punishments when consisting of imprisonment to commence the one after the expiration of the other in such order as the Court may direct, unless the Court directs that such punishments shall run concurrently. (2) In the case of consecutive sentences, it shall not be necessary for the Court by reason only of the aggregate punishment for the several offences being in excess of the punishment which it is competent to inflict on conviction of a single offence, to send the offender for trial before a higher Court: Provided that- (a) in no case shall such person be sentenced to imprisonment for a longer period than fourteen years; (b) the aggregate punishment shall not exceed twice the amount of punishment which the Court is competent to inflict for a single offence. (3) For the purpose of appeal by a convicted person, the aggregate of the consecutive sentences passed against him under this section shall be deemed to be a single sentence. 15. The issue as to in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n if the transaction relating to offences is not the same or the facts constituting the two offences are quite different. 18. Likewise, a question arose before the three-judge Bench in State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali (2001) 6 SCC 311, as to whether the accused convicted in two cases one after another was entitled to claim set off the period of detention during investigation, inquiry or trial from the sentence imposed on conviction in both the cases. While interpreting Section 428 of the Code, the majority of the judges answered the question in affirmative. While answering the question, Justice Thomas, speaking for majority of the Judges, made the following observations, which are pertinent. 17. In the above context, it is apposite to point out that very often it happens, when an accused is convicted in one case under different counts of offences and sentenced to different terms of imprisonment under each such count, all such sentences are directed to run concurrently. The idea behind it is that the imprisonment to be suffered by him for one count of offence will, in fact and in effect be imprisonment for other counts as well. 19. The aforesaid pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
