IQRAM versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 51 · Decided: 16-12-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
51
IQRAM
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS
(Criminal Appeal No. 2319 of 2022)
DECEMBER 16, 2022
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – s. 427 – Sentences in multiple
trials – Appellant sought concurrent running of sentences – The
appellant was charged and put to trial in respect of the nine distinct
FIRs relating to incidents involving theft of electricity equipments –
Nine Session trials were conducted and consequently the accused
was convicted by nine separate judgments – No specific direction
was issued by the trial Court as to allow the subsequent sentences
to run concurrently – Net consequence of the position emerged that
appellant had to undergo a total term of imprisonment of 18 years
– Writ petition before the High Court – The High Court held that in
view of the s.427 of Cr.P.C each subsequent term of conviction has
to commence at the expiration of imprisonment currently undergone
by the appellant – On appeal, held: s. 427 confers a discretion on
the court to direct that the subsequent sentence following a conviction
shall run concurrently with the previous sentence – The High Court
ought to have noticed the serious miscarriage of justice which would
occur consequent upon the trial court not having exercised
specifically its discretion within the ambit of s.427(1) – The right to
personal liberty is a precious and inalienable right recognized by
the Constitution – The High Court ought to have intervened by setting
right the miscarriage of justice which would occur in the above
manner, leaving the appellant to remain incarcerated for a period
of 18 years – Sentences directed to be run concurrently – Impugned
judgment of the High Court set aside – Electricity Act.
Mohd Zahid v. State through NCB 2021 SCC OnLine
SC 1183 – relied on.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
2319 of 2022.
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 51
51
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
52
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.03.2022 of the High Court
of Judicature for UP at Allahabad in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.
460 of 2021.
Md. Anas Chaudhary, Ms. Shehla Chaudhary, Ansar Ahmad
Chaudhary, Advs. for the Appellant.
Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Divyanshu Sahay, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI
1. Leave granted.
2. The facts of the present case provide another instance, a glaring
one at that, indicating a justification for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction
as a protector of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty inhering
in every citizen. If the Court were not to do so, a serious miscarriage of
justice of the nature which has emerged in the present case would be
allowed to persist and the voice of a citizen whose liberty has been
abrogated would receive no attention. The history of this Court indicates
that it is in the seemingly small and routine matters involving grievances
of citizens that issues of moment, both in jurisprudential and constitutional
terms, emerge. The intervention by this Court to protect the liberty of
citizens is hence founded on sound constitutional principles embodied in
Part III of the Constitution. The Court is entrusted with judicial powers
under Article 32 and Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The right to
personal liberty is a precious and inalienable right recognised by the
Constitution. In attending to such grievances, the Supreme Court performs
a plain constitutional duty, obligation and function; no more and no less.
3. The appellant was charged with and put to trial in respect of
nine distinct first information reports relating to alleged incidents involving
the theft of electricity equipment belonging to the Electricity Department
of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
4. Nine sessions trials were conducted by the Additional District
and Sessions Judge-I, Hapur1. The number of accused in each of the
sessions trial varies. The appellant was the constant feature in all the
nine trials.
1 SST Nos 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448 and 467 of 2020
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
53
5. The appellant agreed to a plea bargain. The Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Hapur by nine separate judgments dated 5 November
2020, convicted the accused. The appellant was convicted of an offence
under Section 136 of the Electricity Act. The accused had been confined
in jail as under-trials for varying periods. The Additional Sessions Judge
sentenced the

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