Delhi High Court
Mukesh W/O Lt. Dilbagh vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 14 November, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. No. 3743/2013
Date of decision: 14th November, 2014
MUKESH W/O LT. DILBAGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Adv.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Yogesh Verma, APP for the
State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH
VED PRAKASH VAISH, J. (ORAL)
1. By way of this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), the
petitioner seeks direction for running the sentences pronounced
in FIR No.575/2008 registered at P.S. Sultanpuri and FIR
No.150/2009 registered at P.S. Sultanpuri (Crime Branch)
concurrently.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
convicted for the offence under Section 368 IPC in case FIR
No.575/2008 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand).
In case of default in payment of fine the petitioner was to
undergo further imprisonment for six months vide Order on
sentence dated 03.03.2012 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge / Special Judge (NDPS), Rohini Courts, Delhi
3. The petitioner was also convicted in case FIR No.150/2009
under sections 366A/372/120B IPC registered at P.S. Sultanpuri
(Crime Branch) and was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of
ten years and fine of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) for
the offence under Section 120B IPC. In default of payment of
fine, the petitioner was to undergo SI for one year. She was
further sentenced to undergo RI for a period of ten years and fine
of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) for the offence
punishable under Section 366A IPC read with Section 120B
IPC. In default of payment of fine she was to further undergo SI
for a period of one year. She was also sentenced to undergo RI
for a period of ten years and fine of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen
thousand) for the offence under Section 372 IPC read with
Section 120B IPC. In default of payment of fine she was to
undergo SI for a further period of one year.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in
judicial custody since 09.05.2010 and prays that the sentences in
both the cases be run concurrently.
5. At this juncture, it is necessary to reproduce Section 427 Cr.P.C:
"427 Cr.P.C: Sentence on offender already
sentenced for another offence.
(1) 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:
Provided that where a person who has been
sentenced to imprisonment by an order under
section 122 in default of furnishing security is,
whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to
imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the
making of such order, the latter sentence shall
commence immediately.
(2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of
imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent
conviction to imprisonment for a term or
imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall
run concurrently with such previous sentence."
6. According to the provisions of Section 427 Cr.P.C. when a
person is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment in one
case and is further sentenced in the second case, the second
sentence shall commence at the expiry of imprisonment of
which he has been previously sentenced unless the court directs
the subsequent sentence to run concurrently.
7. It is a settled law that this Court has power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to direct the sentences to run concurrently. In 'Jadu @
Jadua Bhai vs. State of Orissa' 1992 Crl.L.J.2117 it was held
that under Section 482 Cr.PC the Court has the power to order
sentences to be run concurrently. However, it is to be decided
taking into consideration the factual matrix of each case.
8. While considering the provisions of Section 428 and 427 Cr.P.C.
the Apex Court in 'State of Maharashtra vs. Najakat Ali
Mubarak Ali' (2001) 6 SCC that Section 428 Cr.PC precedes
Section 427 which provides that when any person sentenced on a
conviction is already undergoing sentence of imprisonment, such
subsequent imprisonment shall commence at the expiration of
the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced.
However, the court upon its discretion can direct that subsequent
sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.
Section 427 of the Code thus authorizes a court of law to direct
the sentence awarded by it to run concurrently which is to be
done keeping in view the facts of each case. His detention
pending investigation, inquiry and trial in that case or some
other cases being relevant consideration while directing the
sentences to run consecutively or concurrently.
9. The Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in 'Shersingh
vs. State of M.P.' 1989 Cri.L.J. 632 observed that inherent
power of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC could be
exercised even if the trial Court or the Appellate or Revisional
Court has been unable to invoke its powers under Section 427(1)
of Cr.PC in directing running of previous and subsequent
sentences concurrently. High Court's inherent powers can be
invoked at any stage and are not hampered by the provisions of
Section 427(1) Cr.PC. This is also the case even when no such
Order is passed under Section 427(1) Cr.PC by the trial Court or
Appellate or Revisional Court and even though the conviction
has become final.
10. In the instant case the petitioner was convicted in case FIR
No.575/2008 registered at P.S. Sultanpuri, Delhi and sentenced
vide order dated 03.03.2012 and she was also convicted in FIR
No.150/2009 registered at P.S. Sultanpuri (Crime Branch) and
sentenced vide order dated 31.01.2013.
11.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the
fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 09.05.2010, it
is directed that the substantive sentence imposed upon the
petitioner in case FIR No.575/2008 at P.S. Sultanpuri, Delhi and
FIR No.150/2009 registered at P.S. Sultanpuri (Crime Branch)
shall run concurrently.
12.With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.
A copy of this order be sent to concerned Jail Superintendent for
necessary action and compliance.
(VED PRAKASH VAISH)
JUDGE
November 14, 2014
aj
