ANIL KUMAR versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 418 · Decided: 17-01-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

. A 
B 
c 
[2017] 1 S.C.R. 418 
ANIL KUMAR 
v . 
. STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 77 of20 17) 
'JANUARY 17,2017 
[DIPAK MISRA AND R. BANUMATID, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.427- Exercise of power. 
under, scope - In ternls of sub-section (1) of s.427. if a person 
already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a 
subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such subsequent term of 
· imprisonment would normally commence at the expiration vf the 
imprisonment to which he was previously sei1tenced- Only in 
appropriate cases, the court can make the sentence run concurrently 
with an earlier :Jentence imposed- The investiture of such discretion, 
D · presupposes that such d;scretion be exercised by the Court o~ sound 
judicial principles and not in a mechankal manner- Whether or 
not the discretion is to be· exercised in directing sentences to run 
concurrently would depend upon the nature of the offence/offences 
and the facts and circumstances of each case -
In the instant case. 
E 
F 
the appellant was e"r/ier convicted u/s.22 NDPS Act and 
subsequemly convicted uls.27{b){ii) and s.28 of the Drugs and 
Cosmetks Act, 1940-111 view of nature of the offences for which 
the appellant was convicted and the facts and circumstances of the 
case, the sentence imposed on the appellant in the two offences to 
nm concurrently- However. the fine amount and the default sentence 
or sentences are maimained - If the fine amount is not paid, the 
default sentence will run consecutively and not concurre.ntly -
Appeal allowed. 
V. K. Bansal v. State of Haryana and Am: (2013) 7 SCC 
211 : (20131 7 SCR 617; Benson v. Sta_te of Kerala 
G 
(2016) 10 SCC 307- relied on. 
H 
Case Law Reference 
i2Gl3) 7 SCR 617 
relied on 
(2016) 10 sec 307 
relied on 
' 418 
Para6 
Para7 
~------ - ... _, ____ 
..... 
ANIL KUMAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
419 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
A 
No. 77 of2017. 
• 
From the Order dated 12.07.2016 by the High Court of Punjab 
and Haryana at Ch~digarh in CRM No. 19868 of20 16 in CRR No. 308 
of2016. 
Aman Preet Singh Rahi. Raghav Cbadl1, A. Venayngam Balan, 
Advs. for the AppeiJant. 
Jayant K. Sud, A jay P. Tushir, Umang Singh, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, 
Advs. for t11e Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R. BANUMATIU, J. I. This appeal arises out of the order dated 
• 
12.07.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at 
Chandigarh in CRM No.19868 of20 16 in CRR No.308 of20 16, whereby 
the application filed by the appellant seeking dire<:tion to treat sentence 
imposed on him in Complaint No.638 dated 24.08.2009 and that in FIR 
No.37 dated 19.04.2009 to run concurrently, was declined. 
2. Brief facts are as follows. By judgment dated 23.07.2014 in 
FIR No.37 dated 19.04.2009 PS Longowal. the appellant was convicted 
under Section 22 ofNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 
1985 (NDPS Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 
ten years and pay fine of rupee one Jakh and in default to undergo 
~ 
imprisonment for two years. By the judgment dated 25.08.2014, in the 
Complaint No.638 dated 24.08.2009, the appellant wns convicted under 
Section 27(b)(ii)and Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 
B 
c 
D 
E 
and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and 
pay fine of Rs.S,OOO/-(rupces five thousand). The appellant preferred 
appeal against the said conviction and the same was dismissed by the 
Appellate Court. The revision preferred by the appeJ I ant before the High 
Court was also dismissed by the judgment dated 24.05.2016 in CRR 
No.JOS of2016. The appellant filed miscellaneous application, CRM 
No.l9868 of 2016 seeking clarification of the order dated 24.05.2016 . a 
and further direction to treat the sentences of the appellant as concurrent 
F 
in terms of Section 427 ( 1) and (2) Cr.P.C. TI1e said application was 
dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order. 
· 
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 
H 
420 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2o 1111 s.c.R: 
. . '· 4. The pm\ter conferred on the Court under Section 427 Cr.P.C. . . 
to ord~r concurrent sentence is discretionary. Section 427 Cr.P.C. reads 
·~ 
as under:-
' 
"S.427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another 
offence.-( t) When a person already undergoing a sentence of 
·imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment · 
or imprisonment for life, such 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.