Bombay High Court
Mahendra Digambarrao Deshmukh, ... vs The State Of Mah. Thr. A.C.B. ... on 5 April, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 apeal355.10+3.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 355 OF 2010
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 515 OF 2010
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 516 OF 2010
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 517 OF 2010
CRI.APPEAL NO.355/2010.
Mahendra S/o. Digamber Deshmukh,
Aged about 35 years, R/o. Laghuvetan
Colony, District : Amravati
(Presently at District Prison, Paithan)
.... APPELLANT.
// VERSUS //
The State of Maharashtra,
through Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Amravati.
.... RESPONDENT
.
WITH
CRI.APPEAL NO.515/2010.
Mahendra S/o. Digamber Deshmukh,
Aged about 35 years, R/o. Laghuvetan
Colony, District : Amravati
(Presently at District Prison, Paithan)
.... .... APPELLANT.
// VERSUS //
The State of Maharashtra,
through Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Amravati.
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:04:24 :::
Judgment 2 apeal355.10+3.odt
.... .... RESPONDENT
.
WITH
CRI.APPEAL NO.516/2010.
Mahendra S/o. Digamber Deshmukh,
Aged about 35 years, R/o. Laghuvetan
Colony, District : Amravati
(Presently at District Prison, Paithan)
.... APPELLANT,
ig // VERSUS //
The State of Maharashtra,
through Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Amravati.
.... .... RESPONDENT
.
WITH
CRI.APPEAL NO.517/2010.
Mahendra S/o. Digamber Deshmukh,
Aged about 35 years, R/o. Laghuvetan
Colony, District : Amravati
(Presently at District Prison, Paithan)
.... APPELLANT.
// VERSUS //
The State of Maharashtra,
through Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Amravati.
.... .... RESPONDENT
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri M.P.Khajanchi, Advocate (Appointed) for Appellant.
Shri S.S.Doifode, A.P.P. for Respondent/State.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : APRIL 05, 2016.
Judgment 3 apeal355.10+3.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri M.P. Khajanchi, advocate appointed by the Court to
represent the appellant and Shri S.S. Doifode, A.P.P. for the respondent/
State.
2. These four appeals are being disposed by a common judgment
as the appellant in all the appeals is same and the point involved in the
appeals is also same.
3. The appellant is convicted by the Sessions Court by the
judgment given in Sessions Trial No.199 of 1998 on 19th January, 2003 for
the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the
appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of
Rs.One Thousand and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months. The judgment passed by the Sessions Court
was challenged before this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 2003 which
was dismissed by the judgment delivered on 27th September, 2006.
4. The appellant is tried in Special (ACB) Case No. 06/2002 for
the offence punishable under Sections 477-A, 120-B and 465 of the Indian
Penal Code and for the offence under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d)
punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Judgment 4 apeal355.10+3.odt
The Special Court by the judgment dated 6th February, 2008 convicted the
appellant and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as stated in the judgment.
The appellant is tried in Special (ACB) Case No. 09/2002 and is
convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 477-A, 120-B and 465 of
the Indian Penal Code and for the offence under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d)
punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
by judgment dated 6th February, 2010 and is sentenced to undergo
imprisonment as stated in the judgment.
The appellant is tried in Special (ACB) Case No. 08/2002 and is
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 477-A, 120-B and 465 of
the Indian Penal code and for the offence under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d)
punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
by judgment dated 6th February, 2010 and is sentenced to undergo
imprisonment as stated in the judgment.
The appellant is tried in Special (ACB) Case No. 07/2002 and is
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 477-A, 120-B and 465 of
the Indian Penal Code and for the offence under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d)
punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
by judgment dated 6th February, 2010 and is sentenced to undergo
imprisonment as stated in the judgment.
Judgment 5 apeal355.10+3.odt
5. Shri M.P.Khajanchi, learned advocate for the appellant has
submitted that as the appellant has pleaded guilty, the only submission which
is required to be considered is that when the judgments are delivered in
Special (ACB) Case No.06 of 2002, Special (ACB) Case No. 09 of 2002,
Special (ACB) Case No. 08 of 2002 and Special (ACB) Case No. 07 of 2002,
the appellant was undergoing the sentence for life imprisonment in view of
the conviction in Sessions Trial No. 199 of 1998 for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in view of the provisions of
Section 427(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge should have directed that the subsequent sentence
imposed on the appellant by the judgment passed in each of the special case
shall run concurrently with the previous sentence of imprisonment for life.
It is submitted that in the judgment given in Special (ACB)
Case No. 06 of 2002, Special (ACB) Case No. 09 of 2002, Special (ACB) Case
No. 08 of 2002 and Special (ACB) Case No. 07 of 2002 the learned
Additional Sessions Judge has directed that the sentence in all these cases
shall run concurrently in view of provisions of Section 427(1) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. It is pointed out that the judgment in all these four
cases is delivered on the same date i.e. on 6th February, 2010. The learned
advocate has submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has
committed an error in not giving benefit of Section 427(2) of the Code of
Judgment 6 apeal355.10+3.odt
Criminal Procedure, 1973 to the appellant and has denied it on the
erroneous consideration that the sentence for life imprisonment imposed on
the appellant was for another crime arising out of different transaction and
the sentence imposed on the appellant in the four cases in which the
judgment is delivered on 6th February, 2010, the appellant is convicted for
different offences some of which are under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. Relying on the judgment given by the Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Rambhau Pandurang Vs. State of Mah., reported in 2000(1)
Mh.L.J. 88, it is submitted that the appellant is entitled for the benefit as per
Section 427(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the judgment
passed in the four cases are required to be modified accordingly.
6. Shri S.S.Doifode, learned A.P.P. for the respondent has not been
able to controvert the submissions made on behalf of the appellant.
7. It is undisputed that on 6th February, 2010 when the judgment
is delivered in four cases in which the appellant is tried, the appellant was
undergoing life imprisonment as per the judgment delivered in Sessions Trial
No. 199 of 1998 and maintained by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of
2003. Considering the provisions of Section 427(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and the proposition laid down in the judgment given in the case
of Rambhau Pandurang Wankhade, I am of the view that the appellant is
entitled for the benefit of Section 427(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Judgment 7 apeal355.10+3.odt
The learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error by not giving
benefit of Section 427(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the appellant-
accused.
8. Hence, the following order :
The judgments delivered in Special (ACB) Case No. 06 of 2002,
Special (ACB) Case No. 09 of 2002, Special (ACB) Case No. 08 of 2002 and
Special (ACB) Case No. 07 of 2002 on 6th January, 2010 are modified and it
is directed that the sentence imposed on the appellant by the above
judgments shall run concurrently with the previous sentence of imprisonment
for life imposed on the appellant in Sessions Trial No. 199 of 1998 and
confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 2003.
The appeals are partly allowed in the above terms.
The fees of the learned advocate appointed to represent the
appellant is quantified at Rs.5,000/- in all the four appeals, i.e. Rs.1,250/-
per appeal.
JUDGE
RRaut..
