Bombay High Court
Syed Irshad Syed Iqbal vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 22 December, 2021
Bench: M. G. Sewlikar
{1} CRI RA 259 OF 2019 & ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
901 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.259 OF 2019
. Syed Irshad s/o. Syed Iqbal
Age : 30 years, Occu.: Labour,
R/o. Kogalli, Bhokar, Tal. Bhokar,
Dist.Nanded. ..Applicant
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through The Police Inspector,
Bhokar Police Station,
Bhokar, Tal. Bhokar, Dist.Nanded.
2. Rajeshwar G.Panchal (Complainant)
Age: 30 years, Occu.: Advocate,
R/o. Gandhinagar, Bhokar, Tal.Bhokar,
Dist.Nanded. ..Respondents
...
928 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.97 OF 2021
WITH APPLN/1067/2021 IN REVN/97/2021
. Syed Irshad s/o. Syed Iqbal
Age : 40 years, Occu.: Labour,
R/o. Kogalli, Bhokar, Tal. Bhokar,
Dist.Nanded. ..Applicant
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station, Bhokar
Dist.Nanded.
2. Vinod Pundlikrao Chinchalkar
Age: 40 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o. Bhokar, Tal.Bhokar,
Dist.Nanded. ..Respondents
...
929 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.98 OF 2021
WITH APPLN/1070/2021 IN REVN/98/2021
. Syed Irshad s/o. Syed Iqbal
Age : 40 years, Occu.: Labour,
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 04:24:42 :::
{2} CRI RA 259 OF 2019 & ORS
R/o. Kogalli, Bhokar, Tal. Bhokar,
Dist.Nanded. ..Applicant
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station, Bhokar
Dist.Nanded.
2. Satish Balajirao Kadam
Age: 42 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o. Matual, Tal.Bhokar,
Dist.Nanded. ..Respondents
...
930 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.99 OF 2021
WITH APPLN/1072/2021 IN REVN/99/2021
. Syed Irshad s/o. Syed Iqbal
Age : 40 years, Occu.: Labour,
R/o. Kogalli, Bhokar, Tal. Bhokar,
Dist.Nanded. ..Applicant
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station, Bhokar
Dist.Nanded.
2. Satish Mujahid Shaikh Hamid
Age: 40 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o. Chikalwadi, Bhokar, Tal.Bhokar,
Dist.Nanded. ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Applicant : Smt. Anuradha S. Mantri
APP for Respondent No.1 : Shri S.W.Munde and
Shri G.O.Wattamwar in respective matters.
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Shri S.A. Kulkarni
....
CORAM : M.G.SEWLIKAR, J.
DATE: 22nd December, 2021
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 04:24:42 :::
{3} CRI RA 259 OF 2019 & ORS
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. These revision applications are preferred by the applicant
accused against decision in R.C.C. Nos.205 of 2009, 184 of 2010,
39 of 2010 and 159 of 2010. In R.C.C. No.205 of 2009, applicant
is sentenced to sufer rigorous imprisonment for three years with
fine of Rs.1,000/-0 in default to sufer rigorous imprisonment for
one month. In R.C.C. No.184 of 2010, applicant is sentenced to
sufer rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of
Rs.1,000/-0 in default to sufer rigorous imprisonment for one
month. In R.C.C. No.39 of 2010, applicant is sentenced to sufer
rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.500/-0 in
default to sufer rigorous imprisonment for one month. In R.C.C.
No.159 of 2010, applicant is sentenced to sufer rigorous
imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.1,000/-0 in default to
sufer rigorous imprisonment for one month. The learned trial
Court directed the sentence of imprisonment to be sufered in all
these cases consecutively.
2. Applicant has preferred these revision applications
contending that in terms of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, applicant ought to have been directed to sufer
imprisonment in all these cases concurrently.
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 04:24:42 :::
{4} CRI RA 259 OF 2019 & ORS
3. Smt.A.S.Mantri, learned counsel for the applicant submits
that in terms of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
applicant ought to have been directed to sufer sentence of
imprisonment concurrently. She submits that applicant is in jail
since 25th September, 2009 in R.C.C. No.205 of 2009. In R.C.C.
No.184 of 2010, he is behind bars from 22 nd October, 2010. In
R.C.C. No.39 of 2010, applicant is behind bars since 21 st
February, 2010 and in R.C.C. No.159 of 2010, applicant is
released on bail. Smt.Mantri, learned counsel for the applicant
submits that applicant has sufered almost entire sentence. She
submits that amount of fine has been deposited.
4. Report from the Superintendent of Central Prison, Nashik
has been called. The said report states that applicant would be
released on 20th March, 2022 after undergoing entire sentence.
5. Smt.Mantri, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vicky @ Vikas Vs.
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) in Criminal Appeal No.208 of 2020
(Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.4201 of 2019). In the case of Vicky
@ Vikas (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court made following
observations:
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 04:24:42 :::
{5} CRI RA 259 OF 2019 & ORS
15. Further, in the case of Anil Kumar V. State of Punjab
(2017) 5 SCC 53, it was held by this Court that "in terms of
sub-section (1) of Section 427, if a person already
undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a
subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such subsequent
term of imprisonment would normally commence at the
expiration of the imprisonment to which he was previously
sentenced. Only in appropriate cases, considering the facts
of the case, the Court can make the sentence run
concurrently with an earlier sentence imposed. The
investiture of such discretion, presupposes that such
discretion be exercised by the Court on sound judicial
principles and not in a mechanical manner. Whether or not
the discretion is to be exercised in directing sentences to
run concurrently would depend upon the nature of the
offence/offences and the facts and circumstances of each
case."
6. In the case at hand, admittedly, applicant has undergone
almost full term of sentence. He would be set free on 20 th March,
2022. Having regard to this, I deem it appropriate to give benefit
of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the applicant.
In view of this, following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Applicant to undergo sentence in R.C.C. Nos.184 of
2010, 205 of 2009 with 39 of 2010 and 159 of 2010
concurrently.
{6} CRI RA 259 OF 2019 & ORS
(ii) Fees of learned counsel appointed to represent
respondent No.2 is quantified at Rs.5,000/-0. It is to be paid
through the High Court Legal Services Authority, Sub-0
Committee, Aurangabad.
(iii) All the Revision Applications are disposed of.
(iv) All interim orders stand vacated.
(v) Pending Criminal Applications are also disposed of.
( M.G.SEWLIKAR )
JUDGE
SPT
