Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2016 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 1483 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - concurrent running of sentences in two different cases - Whether the High Court exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can invoke Section 427 Cr.P.C. and order that sentences awarded in two different cases shall run concurrently? - HELD THAT:- The reference so made is essentially based on the judgment given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.R. Kudva v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2006 (12) TMI 578 - SUPREME COURT]. Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case was adjudicating an order passed by the High Court on an application preferred under Section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In the case aforesaid a bank employee was subjected to trial for two criminal cases and was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B/420, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code read with Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. In both the cases learned trial court opined that the accused did not deserve any sympathy and deserves to undergo sentence consecutively. This fact indicates that the trial court examined the issue with regard to exercise of discretion as per Section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure and further the conviction recorded and sentence imposed remained intact up till the highest court. An application subsequently was preferred to have an order for undergoing sentence concurrently. True it is, in the case of SUNDARAM VERSUS THE SECRETARY, STATE OF TAMIL NADU, HOME DEPARTMENT AND ORS. [2014 (1) TMI 1919 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], the Division Bench of Madras High Court held that the order passed by Single Bench of that Court was per incuriam because that ignored the mandate of Section 427(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, but at the same time invoked inherent powers of High Court to meet the ends of justice and also to untied the Gordian knot to release the prisoner from a legal mess. The court while doing so also observed about availability of remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of the grievances of aggrieved person and to secure ends of justice. As per Section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure, in normal course a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, if sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such imprisonment commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, but the court in its discretion based on settled principles may direct that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with previous sentence. While exercising such discretion, the trial court, appellate court or revisional court, as the case may be, keeps in mind several factors. While examining such factors, the possibility of some error cannot be ruled out - The inherent jurisdiction is having a very large amplitude but should always be exercised cautiously and only to prevent miscarriage of justice. While keeping in mind that the inherent powers must be exercised sparingly, the court should not restrain itself to invoke the same if any injury is caused to the justice. To meet the ends of justice and to rectify the gross error the powers under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised, if court arrives at a conclusion that the trial court, appellate court or the revisional court, as the case may be, failed in completing the circuit of justice while invoking/not invoking the discretion vested with it as per Section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure. The court while doing so must keep in mind all necessary ingredients and precedents which are to be taken into consideration to exercise the discretion as per Section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure. The reference made by learned Single Bench is answered accordingly. Let the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions be listed before learned Single Bench for their adjudication on merits.
|