Doddahanuma @ Hanuma vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 7161 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGAL URU

     DATED THIS THE 23 R D DAY OF DECEMB ER, 2021

                        BEFOR E

THE HON'BLE MR . JUSTICE SREEN IVAS HARISH KUMAR

     WRIT PETITION NO.18894 OF 2021(GM-RES)

BETWEEN

Doddahanuma @ Hanuma,
S/o Venkatappa,
Aged about 56 years,
R/at Dandupalya Village,
Hosakote Taluk,
Bengaluru District-560067.

(Now in Judicial Custody,
 Central Prison, Hindalga,
 Belgaum).
                                          ...Petitioner
(By Sri Hashmath Pasha, Senior Advocate for
    Sri Nasir Ali, Advocate)

AND

1.    State of Karnataka
      By its Secretary Department of
      Home and Prison, Vidhana Soudha,
      Bengaluru-560001.

2.    Inspector General of Prison,
      Office at: Opp.- Freedom Park,
      Seshadri Road, B engaluru-560009.

3.    Chief Superintendent,
      Central Prison, Hindalga,
      Belgaum-591108.
                                          ...Respondents
(By Sri V.S.Hegde, SPP II A/w
    Sri B .J.Rohith, HCGP)
                           :: 2 ::


     This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482
and 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to
direct the respondents to follow the provision 427
sub-section    (2)  of   Cr.P.C.,   in  calculation  of
subsequent 6 cases sentences imposed in (1)
SC.No.500/2000 on the file of Hon'ble IV Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru by judgment
and order dated 22.03.2003 for life imprisonment and
etc.

    This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary
hearing this day, the Court made the following:

                        ORDER

Heard Sri. Hashmath Pasha, Senior Counsel for the

petitioner and Sri. V.S. Hegde, SPP-II and also Sri.

B.J.Rohith, Government Pleader for respondents.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a

writ of mandamus or an appropriate direction to the

respondents to follow the provisions of section 427(2)

Cr.P.C. in calculation of sentence imposed on him in cases

decided subsequent to judgment of conviction dated

19.3.2003 in S.C.No.124/2002 by IV Addl. City Civil and

Session Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru.

:: 3 ::

3. It is stated that the petitioner was imposed with

life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.30,000/- consequent to

his conviction for the offence under section 302 Cr.P.C. in

S.C.No.124/2002. Subsequently he was found guilty in

other criminal cases viz., S.C.No.500/2000 decided on

22.3.2003, S.C.No.416/2003 and 417/2003 decided on

17.2.2004, S.C.No.412/2003 clubbed with

S.C.No.418/2003 decided on 17.02.2004,

S.C.No.370/2002 decided on 14.07.2005,

C.C.No.24693/2000 decided on 26.4.2005 and

S.C.No.404/2003 decided on 24.07.2010. If in

S.C.No.500/2000, the petitioner was sentenced to life

imprisonment, in other cases he was sentenced to

imprisonment for a certain period. His grievance is that in

view of life imprisonment imposed in one case and

imprisonment for a certain period in other cases, all those

imprisonment periods would run concurrently with life

imprisonment awarded in S.C.No.124/2002. In relation to

S.C.No.124/2002, he has already spent a period of 22 :: 4 ::

years and therefore he is entitled to seek remission under

section 432 Cr.P.C.

4. According to Sri. V.S.Hegde, learned SPP-II, the

decision as to remission is to be taken by the Government

and therefore this court cannot, in this writ petition, give

any direction.

5. Though it is left to the Government to take a

decision whether remission is to be granted or not, it is

not in dispute that the petitioner was sentenced to

undergo life imprisonment in the first case i.e.,

S.C.No.124/2002. And in the cases decided subsequently,

he was directed to serve life sentence in one case and in

others, imprisonment for certain periods. Section 427(2)

of Cr.P.C. clearly states that if an accused has been

awarded sentence of life imprisonment in one case and

that he is sentenced to imprisonment for life or

imprisonment for a term in subsequent cases, the

punishment of imprisonment in all the subsequent cases

would run concurrently with the life imprisonment :: 5 ::

imposed in the first case. In this view, the petitioner

would be entitled to the benefit of section 427(2) Cr.P.C.

and he gets a right to apply for remission of the sentence.

From the above discussion, a writ is issued declaring

that the petitioner is entitled to benefit under section

427(2) Cr.P.C. and that the sentence of imprisonment

imposed on him in the cases namely S.C.No. 500/2000,

S.C.No.416/2003 c/w S.C.No.417/2003, S.C.No.412/2003

c/w S.C.No.418/2003, S.C.No.370/2002, C.C.

No.24693/2000 and S.C.No.404/2003 would run

concurrently with life imprisonment imposed in

S.C.No.124/2002.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sd