Karnataka High Court
Mujeeb @ Mujeeb Pasha vs State Of Karnataka on 5 March, 2022
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10025 OF 2021
BETWEEN
MUJEEB @ MUJEEB PASHA
S/O KAREEM KHAN ALIAS KARIM SAB
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/O 1ST MAIN ROAD
OPP TO FLOOR MILL DARGA MOHALLA
CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN POLICE STATION
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
PIN-562101.
REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. PASS DIRECTION OR ORDER OF
SENTENCE IN BOTH CASES IN CRL.A.NO.1176/2016 ARISING
OUT OF S.C.NO.101/2013 ORDER DATED 30.06.2021 FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 READ WITH
SECTION 34 OF IPC FOR A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS AS MODIFIED
UNDER SECTION 304 OF IPC AND FINE OF RS.100000/- AND
I/D OF PAYMENT OF FINE TO FURTHER UNDERGO S.I FOR 3
2
YEARS AND B. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA IN S.C.NO.11/2012 DATED 17.12.2015 FOR
A PERIOD OF FOR 3 YEARS WITH FINE OF RS.8,000/- IN
DEFAULT OF 6 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 326 OF IPC BOTH THE CASES
SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking direction of the Jail
Authorities to run the sentences concurrently in both
Crl.A.No.1176/2016 arising out of S.C.No.101/2013 for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC which was
converted into Section 304 Part-I of IPC reducing the
sentence for ten years and the judgment delivered by the
Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur in S.C.No.11/2012 passed
the order of sentence for three years with fine.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for
the respondent-State.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
relied upon the judgments of Single Bench of this Court in
Crl.P.Nos.2423/2017, 9803/2016, 5433/2016, 4573/2018
and 3548/2019.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader objected the same and also filed a report of the
Jail Authorities that the judgment delivered in the earlier
case in S.C.No.11/2012, the sentence completes only on
01.10.2016 and the judgment delivered in
S.C.No.101/2013 starts thereafter as per Section 427 of
Cr.P.C. The judgment of the Sessions Judge has been
modified by the Division Bench in Crl.A.No.1176/2016 and
the petitioner is required to seek modification of the
sentence before the Division Bench. Hence, prayed for
dismissing the petition.
5. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of
the records, the prayer of the petitioner itself reveals that
the sentence passed by the Division Bench in
Crl.A.No.1176/2016 and sentence passed in
S.C.No.11/2012 passed by the Sessions Judge,
Chikkaballapur were ordered to run concurrently. In my
considered opinion, once the judgment of the Sessions
Judge is modified by the Division Bench in
Crl.A.No.1176/2016, the judgment of the Division Bench of
the High Court merges with the judgment of the Sessions
Judge in S.C.No.101/2013. The earlier judgment and
sentence delivered in S.C.No.11/2012 which was previous
conviction and S.C.No.101/2013 is subsequent conviction,
where the Sessions Judge is required to order to run the
sentence concurrently as per Section 427 of Cr.P.C, if it is
brought to the notice of Court. Even if it is not brought to
the notice of the Court regarding the previous conviction, it
has to be brought to the notice of the Court in the appeal
before the Division Bench, but it was not done. Once, in
the criminal appeal the sentence has been modified the
judgment of the Sessions Judge, the judgment of sentence
of the Division Bench merges with the subsequent
judgment in S.C.No.101/2013. Therefore, this Court being
a Single Judge cannot interfere and modify the sentence
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in
Crl.A.No.1176/2016. Therefore, the petitioner is required
to approach the Division Bench for seeking benefit of
concurrent sentence under Section 427 of Cr.P.C., as the
petitioner has already got the benefit of set off under
Section 428 of Cr.P.C., otherwise, it is nothing but
interfering with the sentence passed by the Division Bench
by the single judge.
6. Therefore, the petition is disposed of with
liberty to approach the Division Bench in
Crl.A.No.1176/2016 for seeking benefit of sentence to run
concurrently under Section 427 of Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GBB
