9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Application of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for concurrent sentencing.
Summary: The appeal considered the application of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a case involving a bank employee convicted for offenses under the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant sought concurrent sentencing for two separate cases, but the High Court rejected the application. The appellant's counsel argued that since the nature of the offenses in both cases was the same, the sentences should run concurrently. In the judgment, it was noted that the appellant had been convicted in two separate cases and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for different periods. The Sessions Judge directed the sentences to run concurrently. However, the High Court did not consider the request for concurrent sentencing, and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the appellant were dismissed. The appellant's counsel relied on previous court decisions to support the argument for concurrent sentencing. However, the Supreme Court held that the provision of Section 427 was not invoked during the original cases or appeals. The separate application filed before the High Court after the dismissal of special leave petitions was deemed not maintainable. The Court concluded that the High Court could not exercise its inherent jurisdiction in this case as Section 427 was not applied earlier, and thus the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.
|
