LexBENSON versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H [2016] 8 S.C.R. 166 BENSON v. STATE OF KERALA (Criminal Appeal No. 958of2016) OCTOBER 03, 2016 [DIPAK MISRA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.42? - Concurrent running of subsequent sentence with previous sentence - Appellant charged of having committed various offences - Tried separately and sentenced in each of the offences - Plea of appellant for concurrent running of sentences - Held: Court has the power and discretion to issue a direction that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence - Whether or not a direction ought to be issued in a given case would depend upon the nature of the offence or offences committed and the fact situation - On facts, sentence imposed on appellant in each of the present cases to run concurrently with the sentence imposed upon the appellant in another crime committed by him which is currently operative - Howeve1; this benefit limited in respect of substantive sentences and not on default sentences and sentences of fine. Partly allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. In terms of sub-section (1) of Section 427 of Cr.P.C., 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 of the imprisonment to which he was previously sentenced. Going by this normal principle, in the instance case the sentence chart indicated in communication mentioned is quite correct. However this normal rule is subject to a qualification and it is within the powers of the Court to direct that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. [Para 6][174-G-H; 175-A) 2. In the present case, the appellant stands convicted and sentenced in 12 different matters including the present 4 matters. The maximum sentence in respect of the present crimes is two 166 BENSON v. STATE OF KERALA 167 years' rigorous imprisonment. As per the record, these crimes A were committed on the same day. Having considered the matters, the sentences imposed in each of the present 4 cases (which appear at serial nos.9, 10, 11 and 12 of the chart/communication received from the Director General of Prisons & Correctional Services) shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed in 8 crime no.8 which is currently operative. This benefit is granted in respect of substantive sentences to the appellant but the sentences of fine and the default sentences arc maintained. If the fine as imposed is not deposited, the default sentence or sentences are to run consecutively and not concurrently. [Paras 4, 9)174-A; 176-B-D] C V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 211 : :Z013 (7) SCR 617 - referred to. Case Law Reference 2013 (7) SCR 617 referred to Para 7 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 958of2016. From the Judgment and Order dated 16.09.2015 of the High Court ofKerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No. 808 of2015 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 957, 959 & 960 of2016. Ranjith B. Marar, Ms. Lakshmi N. Kaimal and T. K. Babu, Advs. for the Appellant. G. Prakash, Jishnu M. L., Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Ms. Beena Prakash, Manu Srinath and Ramesh Babu M. R., Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D E F UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. I. Leave granted. These appeals . G by Special Leave arise out of judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Revision Petition Nos. (i) 808 of 2015 on 16.09.2015, (ii) 859of2015 on 16.09.2015, (iii) 858of2015 on 14.09.2015 and (iv) 670of2015 on 17.09.2015. H 168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R. A 2. On the allegation that the appellant was involved in committing thefts he was charged of having committed offences on different occasions and was separately tried in i) CC No.158 of 2004 before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chavakkad for offences punishable under Section 379, 414 read with 34 !PC, ii) CC No.1039 of2003 by Judicial B Magistrate First Class, Chavakkad for offences punishable under Section 379, 414 read with 34 !PC, iii) CC No.390 of2004 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chavakkad for offences punishable under Section 3 79, 414 read with 34 !PC and (iv) CC No.1168 of2006 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kunnamkulam. By separate judgments, the appellant was convicted and sentenced in each of the aforesaid crimes.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.