Karnataka High Court
State By Sarguru Police Station vs Devendra Kumar Soni on 14 September, 2022
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.98 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
STATE BY SARGURU POLICE STATION
SARGURU
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-01.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S. VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP) (PH)
AND:
1. DEVENDRA KUMAR SONI
S/O BASANTHILAL SONI,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT CHOPAT VILLAGE,
ALIRAJ PUR DISTRICT-457887
MADHYA PRADESH.
2. MOR SINGH
S/O DIPLA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT BAMORI VILLAGE,
KUKSHI TALUK,
DHAR DISTRICT,
MADHYA PRADESH-454331.
3. DINESH THAKUR
S/O PUL SINGH
2
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT BAMORI VILLAGE,
KUKSHI TALUK, DHAR DISTRICT,
MADHYA PRADESH-454331.
4. MOHAN
S/O CHETU @ TER SINGH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT BAMORI VILLAGE,
KUKSHI TALUK, DHAR DISTRICT,
MADHYA PRADESH-454221
5. CHOTA MOHAN @ KOR SINGH
S/O SURAJ
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT JULAVANI VILLAGE,
BAGA TALUK, DHAR DISTRICT,
MADHYA PRADESH-454221
6. SHIVA @ SHIVA NARAYANA
S/O RAMADCHANDRA SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT MANGALI VILLAGE,
SANWER TALUK, INDORE DISTRICT,
MADHYA PRADESH-453551
7. HARI SINGG
S/O LATE MUNNA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT DEVAD VILLAGE,
KUKSHI TALUK, DHAR DISTRICT,
MADHYA PRADESH-454331
8. RAJENDRA PURI
S/O JAGADISH PURI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDING AT HAVUD VILLAGE,
SANWER TALUK, INDORE DISTRICT
MADHYA PRADESH-454331.
... RESPONDENTS
3
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THAT PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 05.07.2018 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.134/2018 ON THE
FILE OF VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
MYSURU SITTING AT HUNSUR SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO
EXTENDING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 427 OF CR.P.C. AND
DIRECTING SUBSTANTIVE SENTENCES TO RUN
CONCURRENTLY, WITH OTHER DIFFERENT CASES
UNDERGOING MULTIPLE CONVICTIONS AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS COMING ON
FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;
ORDER
This revision petition is preferred by the State,
questioning the legality and correctness of the sentence
imposed against the respondents by extending the
benefit of Section 427 of Cr.P.C.
2. The accused were convicted by the Trial Court
for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380
R/w Section 149 of IPC. They were sentenced to undergo
S.I for a period of one year and to pay fine of ` 1,000/-
(Rupees One Thousand only) each, in default, to undergo
S.I for a period of three months for the offence
punishable under Section 380 of IPC. They were
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of eight
months and to pay fine of ` 1,000/- (Rupees One
thousand only) each, in default, to undergo S.I for a
period of one month for the offence punishable under
Section 457 of IPC.
3. Both the sentences were ordered to run
concurrently and they were given the benefit of set off.
Further, the jail authorities were directed to calculate the
period of their custody and to release them if the said
period is completed and if they are not required in any
other case.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the
Trial Court, the State preferred an appeal before the
Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge vide
impugned judgment was pleased to enhance the
sentence imposed against the accused persons. The
accused were sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of
two years and ten months and to pay a fine of ` 2,000/-
each, in default to serve S.I for nine months for the
offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC. Further,
they were sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of one
year and six months and to pay fine of ` 1,500/- each, in
default, to serve S.I for four months for the offence
punishable under Section 457 of IPC.
5. The State is aggrieved by the order passed by
the learned Sessions Judge wherein, the learned
Sessions Judge has ordered the subsequent sentence of
imprisonment to run concurrently with the previous
sentence imposed against the accused in other cases.
6. According to the learned HCGP the said order
passed by the learned Sessions Judge is improper and
opposed to law and it has resulted in miscarriage of
justice. He has contended that the accused being a
habitual offender do not entitle any such leniency and
discretion.
7. Section 427 of Cr.P.C authorizes the Court while
imposing sentence to direct the subsequent sentence to
run concurrently with such previous sentence. The
discretion is vested with the Court taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. In
the case on hand, the accused pleaded guilty and
conviction was passed after acceptance of their plea of
guilt. It is not in dispute that the learned Sessions Judge
has enhanced the sentence imposed against the accused
by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under
Sections 457 and 380 of IPC.
8. The learned Sessions Judge has taken into
consideration that the accused are in judicial custody
since 10.08.2015 and from the date of impugned order,
they are serving sentence. It is observed that if the
beneficial provision of Section 427 of CR.P.C is not
extended to the accused, then they will have to be in
prison for more than 15 years. Hence the learned
Sessions Judge was of the opinion that Section 427 of
Cr.P.C will have to be extended to the accused.
Therefore, the subsequent sentence of imprisonment was
ordered to run concurrently with that of previous
sentence. There is no illegality committed by the learned
Sessions Judge in extending the benefit of Section 427 of
Cr.P.C to the accused/respondents.
Hence, the following:-
ORDER
Revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
vs
