Karnataka High Court
Sanjay @ Hanumantha vs The State By Mudigere Police on 16 March, 2022
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.819 OF 2022
BETWEEN
SANJAY @ HANUMANTHA
S/O THANIGERE KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O BELOW SRILKEHA TALKIES
NEAR PUTTASWAMY HANDIGOODU
CHIKKAMAGALUR-577101
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI KRISHNAPPA N R, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THE STATE BY MUDIGERE POLICE
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
HIGH COURT
BENGALURU-560001.
2 . THE STATE BY KADUR POLICE
REPRESENTED SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
HIGH COURT
BENGALURU-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO PASS
2
ORDERS TO RUN CONCURRENTLY THE SENTENCE IMPOSED BY
THE HONBLE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
AT KADUR SENTENCED IN C.C.NO.240/2015 DATED 02.08.2018
AND C.C.NO.1858/2017 DATED 18.08.2018 AND ALSO THE
SENTENCE PASSED IN C.C.NO.206/2017 AND C.C.NO.850/2016
DATED 27.03.2018 THE COPIES OF JUDGMENT ARE PRODUCED
AT ANNEXURE-A TO D BY IMPOSING ANY CONDITIONS.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 22.02.2022 THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner accused under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for a direction to order sentence to
run concurrently in respect of cases in C.C.No.240/2015
dated 2.8.2018, C.C.No. 1858/2017 18.8.2018 and also
C.C. Nos.206/2017 and 2850/2016 dated 27.3.2018
passed by Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
Learned High Court Government Pleader for State.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent
having implicated the petitioner in 18 cases, out of which,
in 8 cases he was found guilty and was convicted and the
other 10 cases ended in acquittal. Learned counsel for
petitioner submits that the petitioner has been serving
sentence for seven years for theft of gold, he has been
convicted in C.C.Nos.240/2015, 1858/2017, 206/2017 and
850/2016. In spite of filing the appeals, the trial Court
confirmed the judgments, but there was no order to run
the sentence concurrently. Hence, prayed for allowing the
petition.
5. Per contra, Learned High Court Government
Pleader objected the petition.
6. I have perused the judgments and the sentences
delivered by the trial Courts.
7. Before going to verify the grounds of the
petitioner, it is worth to mention Section 427(1) of Cr.P.C.
which is as under:
"427.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."
8. Now coming to the sentence passed by the trial
Court, it reveals that the petitioner has been convicted and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment in C.C. No.240/2015
dated 2.8.2018 and ordered that sentence shall run
concurrently along with C.C.No.241/2015, and
C.C.No.139/2015.
9. In another case in C.C. No.1858/2017, the said
petitioner was convicted and sentenced on 18.8.2018.
10. In another case in C.C No.206/2017, he has
been convicted and sentenced on 27.3.2018.
11. In one more case in C.C. No.850/2016, the said
petitioner has been convicted and sentenced on 27.3.2018.
12. On perusal of the subsequent two judgments in
C.C. Nos.206/2017 and 850/2016, the said judgments
were delivered on 27.3.2018 and sentence was also
ordered on the same date. In these two cases, there
should have been a direction to run the sentence
concurrently. But the same was not ordered by the trial
Court, even though the judgment was delivered by the
same court on the same day.
13. However, the judgment delivered in other two
cases in C.C. Nos.240/2015 and 1858/2017, on 2.8.2018
and 18.8.2018 respectively, of course, it was by the same
Court.
14. The judgments in C.C.Nos.206/2017 and
850/2016 were delivered on 27.03.2018 and the petitioner
was serving sentence in these two cases, when the
judgment delivered in C.C. No.240/2015 dated 2.8.2018.
While serving sentence in this case, another judgment was
delivered in C.C. No.1858/2017 on 18.08.2018. All the
crimes committed in these cases were on different dates
and different years.
15. Therefore, the judgment delivered on
27.03.2018 in C.C.Nos.206/2017 and 850/2016 shall be
ordered to run concurrently. The judgment delivered in
C.C.No.240/2015 reveals that the petitioner has already
been convicted in other three cases and therefore, it was
ordered that the sentence shall run concurrently.
Therefore, the petitioner required to serve sentence in
C.C.No.240/2015 along with C.C.No.241/2015, and C.C.
No.139/2015 simultaneously, after completion of the
sentence passed in C.C.Nos.206/2017 and 850/2016.
After serving the sentence in C.C. No.240/2015, he has to
serve sentence in C.C.No.1858/2017 as it was the last
judgment and sentence delivered by the trial Court on
18.08.2018.
16. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part. It is
ordered to run the sentences concurrently in C.C.
Nos.206/2017 and 850/2016 vide judgment dated
27.03.2018 and thereafter, the sentences shall be served
in C.C. No.240/2015 and thereafter, in C.C.
No.1858/2017.
17. The petitioner is entitled for set off under the
provisions of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. as well as remissions
available to him in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CS
