Bombay High Court
Jitendrakumar Anilkumar Singh And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ... on 11 November, 2025
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
1 cr. wp 55.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 55 OF 2025
[Jitendrakumar Anilkumar Singh and anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra
through P.S.O., P.S. Ramnagar, Distt. Chandrapur and ors.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------ - - -
Ms. Ratna A. Singh, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. A. B. Badar, APP for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 3
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND
RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
DATE : 11-11-2025.
Heard.
2. The petitioners herein had earlier filed two writ
petitions bearing Criminal Writ Petition No. 84/2024 and
Criminal Writ Petition No. 260/2024. The petitions were filed
to get benefit under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), which enables the trial
Court to pass order as regards running of sentences. According
to the petitioners, the sentences in cases in which they were
convicted, should run concurrently. These two petitions were
disposed of on 18-11-2024 in following terms.
"1. Heard.
2. The Writ Petitions are disposed of as in view of
the Mandate provided under Section 427 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the petitioners are in agreement that
they shall first suffer the sentence in Regular Criminal Case
No.21 of 2018 convicted on 06.11.2020 by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli and thereafter in Regular
Criminal Case No.45 of 2018 convicted on 23.08.2021 by
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur along with other
eight cases in the very same Court.
2 cr. wp 55.2025
3. As far as the claim for remission in the
subsequent offence and the conviction by the Chandrapur
Court is concerned, it is open for the petitioners to
approach the Jail Authority, seeking remission and in case,
the petitioners are aggrieved by the remission granted, it
shall be open for the petitioners to approach this Court.
4. The Writ Petitions accordingly stand disposed
of."
As could be seen, the petitioners showed agreement that they
shall first suffer the sentence in Regular Criminal Case No.
21/2018 convicted on 06.11.2020 by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate(CJM), Gadchiroli and thereafter in Regular Criminal
Case No. 45/2018 convicted on 23.08.2021 by the CJM,
Chandrapur along with other eight cases. The Court permitted
the petitioners to approach jail authorities to seek remission
with liberty to approach this Court, if they are aggrieved by the
order of remission. Accordingly, present writ petition has been
filed seeking direction to respondent no. 3 to comply order
dated 18-11-2024 mentioned above and to apply set off to
petitioners by the Court of learned CJM, Chandrapur.
3. Pending petition, it was pointed out that vide order
dated 3-2-2023, learned CJM, Chandrapur in Regular Criminal
Case No. 70/2018 rejected the application filed by petitioner -
Vishal Tulshiram Umare seeking prayer that the sentences in
all nine cases in which he has been convicted by CJM,
Chandrapur on the same day, should run concurrently. Since
the application came to be rejected, it appears that the
respondents showed inability to release the petitioners in
terms of what was observed by this Court in its order dated
18-11-2024. Accordingly, in present petition, permission was
granted to challenge order dated 3-2-2023 passed by learned
CJM, Chandrapur.
3 cr. wp 55.2025
4. There is no dispute that the petitioners were
convicted by CJM, Chandrapur in 9 cases and that the order of
conviction was passed on 23-8-2021. Thus, the learned CJM
was aware of the previous conviction awarded by him.
5. It is, in the aforesaid set of facts, that the petitioners
counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of Iqram Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. [(2023) 3
SCC 184] where the learned Sessions Court convicted the
appellant therein in 9 Sessions Trials on the same day. The trial
Court, however, did not exercise its discretion under Section
427 of the Code. The Supreme Court held that such approach
will amount to serious miscarriage of justice. The Court held
that all the convictions took place on the same day, thus, the
trial Court was aware of the previous conviction and sentence
and accordingly, should have issued directions under Section
427 of the Code so as to allow the subsequent sentences to run
concurrently. The relevant findings find place in paragraph nos.
10 to 13 which read as under :-
"10. Section 427 provides that when a person already
undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a
subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment
for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall
commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which
he has been previously sentenced, unless the court directs
that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with
such previous sentence. In other words, sub-section (1) of
Section 427 confers a discretion on the court to direct that
the subsequent sentence following a conviction shall run
concurrently with the previous sentence.
11. In Mohd. Zahid Vs. State, this Court interpreted
the provisions of Section 427 of CrPC after duly
considering the precedents in the following terms : (SCC p.
440, para 17)
4 cr. wp 55.2025
"17. Thus from the aforesaid decisions of this
Court, the principles of law that emerge are as under
17.1. 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.
17.2. Ordinarily the subsequent sentence would
commence at the expiration of the first term of
imprisonment unless the court directs the subsequent
sentence to run concurrently with the previous
sentence.
17.3. The general rule is that where there are
different transactions, different crime numbers and
cases have been decided by the different judgments,
concurrent sentence cannot be awarded under Section
427 Cr.P.C.
17.4. Under Section 427(1) of Cr.PC the court has
the power and discretion to issue a direction that all
the subsequent sentences run concurrently with the
previous sentence, however discretion has to be
exercised judiciously depending upon the nature of the
offence or the offences committed and the facts in
situation. However, there must be a specific direction
or order by the court that the subsequent sentence to
run concurrently with the previous sentence."
12. The trial judge, in the present case, granted a
set-off within the ambit of Section 428/Section 31 CrPC.
No specific direction was issued by the trial court within
the ambit of Section 427(1) so as to allow the subsequent
sentences to run concurrently. All the convictions took
place on the same day.
13. Once the petitioner espoused the remedy of
moving a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution, the High Court ought to have noticed the
serious miscarriage of justice which would occur
5 cr. wp 55.2025
consequent upon the trial court not having exercised
specifically its discretion within the ambit of Section
427(1). When the appellant moved the High Court, he was
aggrieved by the conduct of the jail authorities in
construing the direction of the trial court to mean that
each of the sentences would run consecutively at the end
of the term of previous sentence and conviction. The High
Court ought to have intervened in the exercise of its
jurisdiction by setting right the miscarriage of justice
which would occur in the above manner, leaving the
appellant to remain incarcerated for a period of 18 years
in respect of his conviction and sentence in the nine
Sessions trials for offences essentially under the Electricity
Act."
As could be seen, if a person is already undergoing a sentence
of imprisonment and is sentenced on subsequent conviction to
imprisonment, such subsequent term of imprisonment would
normally commence at the expiry of imprisonment to which he
was previously sentenced. Section 427(1) of the Code,
however, empowers the Court to issue a direction that all the
subsequent sentences shall run concurrently with the previous
sentences, however, discretion has to be exercised judiciously
depending upon the nature of offence or the offences
committed and the facts in situation.
6. In the present case, the petitioners have been
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465,
468, 471, 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 66C
of the Information Technology Act. The allegations against the
petitioners was that they have allegedly used forged ATM cards
of different persons and withdrawn the amount from ATM.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) submits
that the amount runs into Rs. 1.5 Crores. He submits that in
such cases, benefit should not be granted to the petitioners
under Section 427(1) of the Code and, therefore, submits that
6 cr. wp 55.2025
the order passed by learned CJM, Chandrapur should be not
set aside. He further submits that the judgment referred by
petitioners pertains to offence under the Electricity Act, which
are not serious offences. As against, in the present case, the
petitioners have, in number of cases, withdrawn public money
by using forged ATM cards. The offence is serious in nature
and, therefore, no benefit should be extended.
8. At this stage, he seeks time to have research on the
point. Time granted, as a last chance.
9. List the petition on 13-11-2025.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE.)
wasnik
Signed by: Mr. A. Y. Wasnik
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/11/2025 14:38:06
