Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 January, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 20th OF JANUARY, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 44015 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. MAHESH S/O BHUVANSINGH, AGED
ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
LABOUR VILLAGE PIPALDA POLICE
STATION GANDHWANI DISTRICT
DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. AJIT S/O MANOHAR, AGED ABOUT
22 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR
VILLAGE PIPALDA, P.S.
GANDHWANI, DISTRICT DHAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. CHHATAR SINGH S/O BILAM, AGED
ABOUT 22 YEARS, VILLAGE
PIPALDA, P.S. GANDHWANI,
DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SIDDHARTH JAIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
POLICE STATION GANDHAWANI
DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI CHETAN JAIN, GOVT, ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA PARTHO
SARKAR
Signing time: 23-01-2023
16:49:26
2
This application coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 read with
Section 31(1) of the CRPC seeking direction with regard to sentences passed
against the present petitioner under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC in Crime
No.305/2015 to run concurrently.
The facts of the case in short are as under:-
1. One Gulab Singh Bhide, Jan Sikshak was posted at
Government Middle School, Jeerabad . Shri A.S. Yadav, Principal lodged a
report that on 19.09.2015 when he opened the Principal's room of
the school found that computer, C.P.U. mouse, keyboard, cable spike,
scanner (cannon) mike, inverter-2, battery, tabular, printer and old monitor
are missing. According to them, in the preceding night, some
unknown persons committed loot , on such reporting an FIR was
registered at Crime No.305/2015 under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. of the
Indian Penal Code against some unknown persons. The investigation was
started, a spot map was prepared and on the basis of discrete information,
the applicants Mahesh, Ajeet, Guddu @ Yashwant and Chhatar Singh were
arrested. In their memorandum prepared under Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act, they have admitted the commission of a crime and on their
disclosure, all the looted articles have been recovered. After the completion
of the investigation, a charge- sheet was filed. The prosecution has
examined seven witnesses. The applicants denied the charges and pleaded
for trial. After appreciating the evidence on record the learned Court below
has convicted the applicants under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA PARTHO
SARKAR
Signing time: 23-01-2023
16:49:26
sentenced 1-1 year with a fine of 10,000-10,000. Learned the Trial court did
direct to run both sentences run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the above
judgement the accused proffered criminal appeal and Criminal Revision and
both have been dismissed by the learned Additional Session Judge and this
High Court respectively. The applicants did not make a prayer before
superior courts to make sentences run concurrently.
2. Now applicants have approached this court by way of a petition
under section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking direction to sentences run concurrently
otherwise they will have to undergo 2 years in jail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Full Bench of this
Court in the case of Sher Singh Vs. State of M.P. reported in 1989 MPLJ
SCC 116 has considered the scope of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the
applicability of Section 427 of the Cr.PC and held that the High Court has
inherent powers to pass an appropriate order to meet the ends of justice
same analogy can be applied to the applicability of Section 31 for these
applicants, who are the first offender in this case. It is further submitted that
at the time of the offence, they were aged about 21 and 22 years and if they
are required to remain in jail for two years for conviction under Sections 457
and 380 of IPC their future may be spoilt. Therefore it is a fit case in which
the High Court can exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to
direct for running both sentences concurrently.
4. Learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer by submitting that
under Section 31 the power lies with the trial Court to pass an order for
running the sentences concurrently if no order has been passed then all
sentences are liable to be run separately.
Heard and conclusion
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA PARTHO
SARKAR
Signing time: 23-01-2023
16:49:26
5. Section 427 and Section 31 of the Cr.P.C deals with different
fields . Section 427 Cr.P.C applies where the accused is convicted in two
different trials by two different Courts but in Section 31 if the accused is
convicted for two offences in one trial then the trial Court in the given facts
and circumstances may direct to run the sentences concurrently.
6. After conviction by the trial Court, the applicants preferred an
appeal and did not pray for the running of the sentence concurrently and the
Appellate Court has confirmed the order of conviction and sentence as it is.
Thereafter the revision was filed even at that stage no prayer was made.
However, while confirming the sentence, this Court has observed that under
Section 457 of IPC the sentence may go up to 14 years but looking at the
facts and circumstances only one year sentence has been awarded. Likewise
under Section 380 of IPC maximum sentence is seven years but only one
year has been awarded. Cumulatively these applicants are liable to run two
years sentence with a fine which appears to be proper looking to the offence
and sentence provided or the offences under sections 380 and 457 I.P.C. As
stated above Section 31 of the Cr.P.C. relates to sentences in cases of
conviction of several offences at one trial. Under proviso to Sub Section (2)
of Section 31 of Cr.P.C. in no case a person can be sentenced to
imprisonment for a period longer than fourteen years and the aggregate
punishment shall not exceed twice the amount of punishment which the
Court is competent to inflict for a single offence. Section 31 of Cr.P.C. is
reproduced as under:
"31. Sentences in cases of conviction of several
offences at one trial.(1) When a person is
convicted at one trial of two or more offences,
the Court may, subject to the provisions
of section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA PARTHO
SARKAR
Signing time: 23-01-2023
16:49:26
1860 ), sentence him for such offences, to the
several punishments prescribed therefor which
such Court is competent to inflict; such
punishments when consisting of imprisonment to
commence the one after the expiration of the
other in such order as the Court may direct,
unless the Court directs that such punishments
shall run concurrently.
(2) In the case of consecutive sentences, it shall
not be necessary for the Court by reason only of
the aggregate punishment for the several
offences being in excess of the punishment
which it is competent to inflict on conviction of
a single offence, to send the offender for trial
before a higher Court:
Provided that-(a) in no case shall such person
be sentenced to imprisonment for longer period
than fourteen years;
(b) the aggregate punishment shall not exceed
twice the amount of punishment which the Court
is competent to inflict for a single offence.
(3) For the purpose of appeal by a convicted
person, the aggregate of the consecutive
sentences passed against him under this section
shall be deemed to be a single sentence."
7. It is correct that under section 31 of Cr.P.C the powers lie before
the trial Court to pass specific orders for running the sentences concurrently,
otherwise such punishments shall run concurrently. The holding of the
accused guilty under two or more offences of I.P.C. of other enactments the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA PARTHO
SARKAR
Signing time: 23-01-2023
16:49:26
learned Trial Court fix the date for hearing on sentences at that time the
accused may pray of running the sentences concurrently. In this case, the
learned Trial Court did not pass any order to run both sentences run
concurrently and the said judgment has been affirmed by this Court,
therefore the coordinate Bench in the exercise of powers under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C which is akin to Section 397 of the Revisional Jurisdiction
cannot direct to run sentences concurrently by way modification of the order
passed by this High Court in revisional jurisdiction, which is not permissible
under the Cr.P.C.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
das
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA PARTHO
SARKAR
Signing time: 23-01-2023
16:49:26
