Bombay High Court
Jitendrakumar Anilkumar Singh And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ... on 19 November, 2025
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
2025:BHC-NAG:12638-DB
1 940 cr wp no.55.25.odt..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.55 OF 2025
Jitendrakumar Anilkumar Singh and another
.Vs.
State of Maharashtra and ors.
__________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
__________________________________________________________________
Mrs. Ratna Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. A.B.Badar, APP for respondents /State.
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND
RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
DATED : 19.11.2025.
On the previous date following order was
passed.
" 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
2 940 cr wp no.55.25.odt..odt
23.08.2021 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chandrapur along with other eight cases in the very
same Court.
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.
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,
3 940 cr wp no.55.25.odt..odt
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)
"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
4 940 cr wp no.55.25.odt..odt
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
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
5 940 cr wp no.55.25.odt..odt
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 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."
6 940 cr wp no.55.25.odt..odt
2. In response, the counsel for the petitioners
instead of placing on record judgments on the issue, seeks
permission to withdraw the petition, the purpose having
been served. She further seeks liberty to challenge order
dated 03.02.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chandrapur in Regular Criminal Case
No.70/2018 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner
Vishal Tulshiram Umare seeking a prayer of concurrent
running of sentences passed in all nine cases against him.
3. We are not impressed by the stand taken by the
petitioners. The request of withdrawal is being made once
we passed the order dated 11.11.2025.
4. We may note here that at the behest of
petitioners, permission to challenge order dated 03.02.2023
mentioned above, was granted by the Court. Accordingly,
petition was amended. The hearing continued on insistence
of the petitioners.
5. As such, we have noted in our order dated
11.11.2025, by referring to the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Iqram Vs State of Uttar
Pradesh and ors. [(2023) 3 SCC 184], that if a person is
already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment and the
sentence 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. The Supreme Court held that
under Section 427(1) of Cr.P.C. the Court passing sentence
is empowered to ensure the direction of all the subsequent
7 940 cr wp no.55.25.odt..odt
sentences shall run concurrently with the previous
sentences, however, discretion has to be exercised
judiciously depending upon the nature of offences or the
offences committed and the facts in situation.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of O.M. Cherian
alias Thankachan vs. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in
(2015)2 SCC 501 while dealing with Section 31 of CrPC
observed in paragraphs 20 and 21 as under:-
"20. Under Section 31 CrPC it is left to the full discretion
of the court to order the sentences to run concurrently in case
of conviction for two or more offences. It is difficult to lay
down any straitjacket approach in the matter of exercise of
such discretion by the courts. By and large, trial courts and
appellate courts have invoked and exercised their discretion
to issue directions for concurrent running of sentences,
favouring the benefit to be given to the accused. Whether a
direction for concurrent running of sentences ought to be
issued in a given case would depend upon the nature of the
offence or offences committed and the facts and
circumstances of the case. The discretion has to be exercised
along the judicial lines and not mechanically.
21. Accordingly, we answer the reference by holding
that Section 31 CrPC leaves full discretion with the court to
order sentences for two or more offences at one trial to run
concurrently, having regard to the nature of offences and
attendant aggravating or mitigating circumstances. We do not
find any reason to hold that normal rule is to order the
sentence to be consecutive and exception is to make the
sentences concurrent. Of course, if the court does not order
the sentence to be concurrent, one sentence may run after the
other, in such order as the court may direct. We also do not
find any conflict in the earlier judgment in Mohd. Akhtar
Hussain and Section 31 CrPC."
7. As such Section 31 of the Code deals with the
sentence in case of conviction of several offences at one trial.
However, the Supreme Court has held that under the said
provision it is left to the full discretion of the Court to order
the sentences to run concurrently in case of conviction for
two or more offences. The Court further held that it is
difficult to lay down any straitjacket approach in the matter
8 940 cr wp no.55.25.odt..odt
of exercise of such discretion by the courts. The Court then
held that whether a discretion for concurrent running of
sentences ought to be issued in a given case would depend
upon the nature of offence or offences committed and the
facts and circumstances of the case. The discretion has to be
exercised along with judicial lines and not mechanically.
Accordingly, the Court answered the reference by holding
that Section 31 CrPC leaves full discretion with the Court to
order sentences for two or more offences at one trial to run
concurrently, having regard to the nature of offences and
attendant aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
8. Thus, what is important in the ruling is that the
full discretion is available to the trial Court to order the
sentences to run concurrently or consecutively. In the
present case, the trial Court was aware that on the same day
he has convicted the petitioner for offences which were
similar but were committed at different time and place.
Accordingly, trial Court thought it proper to not exercise
discretion in favour of petitioner. Therefore, the order of
concurrent running of sentences was not passed meaning
thereby that the trial Court intended to have sentences to
run consecutively.
9. The question before us is whether we should
interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court.
10. It is well settled that interference by this Court
in such discretion will be extremely rare and will be
available only if there is an apparent error in exercising
judicial discretion by the trial Court. Here, we do not find
that trial Court committed any error in not directing
9 940 cr wp no.55.25.odt..odt
concurrent running of sentences. There is one more reason
why we find that the trial Court has not committed any
error.
11. The learned APP has pointed out, and right so,
that in the case of Iqram (supra), the conviction was for the
offences under the Electricity Act, whereas, in the present
case the petitioners have withdrawn public money by using
forged ATM card. Learned APP submits that this is a
financial fraud and can be said to be an economic offence.
He has invited our attention to the judgment of Supreme
Court in the case of Anil Bhavarlal Jain and another Vs. The
State of Maharashtra and Ors. in Criminal Appeal (Special
Leave Petition (Cri) No.10078 of 2023). The Supreme Court
while dealing with petition for quashing of First Information
Report referred to another judgment and observed thus:
"Another reference can be made to the judgment of
this Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujrat
and Anr (2017) SCC Online SC 1189 wherein it was observed
that, economic offences involving financial and economic well-
being of the State have implications which lie beyond the
domain of a mere dispute between the private disputants. The
High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the
offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or
economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act
complained of upon the financial or economic system will
weigh in the balance. Thus, it can be concluded that economic
offences by their very nature stand on a different footing than
other offences and have wider ramifications. They constitute a
class apart. Economic offences affect the economy of the
country as a whole and pose a serious threat to the financial
health of the country. If such offences are viewed lightly, the
confidence and trust of the public will be shaken."
Thus, the Court held that economic offences by their
very nature stand on a different footing than other offences
and have wider ramifications."
10 940 cr wp no.55.25.odt..odt
12. In the present case, the petitioners have on
multiple occasions withdrawn public money by using forged
ATM Cards and duped innocent citizens. The offences
committed by petitioners are definitely serious in nature and
therefore, there is no reason to grant benefit of concurrent
running of sentences in terms of Section 427 (1) of the
Code.
13. The challenge to order dated 03.02.2023 passed
by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur, is accordingly,
dismissed. Respondent shall accordingly process the case of
petitioners in terms of judgment passed by the Gadchiroli
Court and Chandrapur, Court.
14. Petitioner No.2 has been released in terms of
order dated 14.02.2025 passed by this Court. We
accordingly recall said order wherein we have said that
petitioner No.2 has completed the sentence. The order was
passed under wrong impression and oblivious to the order
dated 03.02.2023 passed by C.J.M. Chandrapur. The
petitioner No.2 shall surrender before Superintendent of
Amravati Prison within 14 days from today, failing which,
the respondent No.3 shall approach Jurisdictional Magistrate
i.e. C.J.M., Chandrapur for issuing warrant of arrest and
shall take further course of action.
15. Petitioner No.1 is said to be on bail, his
sentence having been suspended by First Appellate Court.
Thus, it appears that petitioners have challenged the order
and judgment of conviction. The appeal is pending.
11 940 cr wp no.55.25.odt..odt
16. That being so, the consequences of the decision
in appeal will follow in future. However, in the event appeal
is dismissed, the First Appellate Court will be bound by what
we have said in today's order as regards running of
sentences. The petition is disposed of in terms of above.
17. Learned APP shall serve the copy of order to
concerned court.
[RAJ D. WAKODE, J] [ANIL L. PANSARE, J.]
manisha
Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 21/11/2025 16:47:53
