M.R.KUDVA versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 1142 · Decided: 15-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M.R.KUDVA 
v. 
STA TE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
DECEMBER 15, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
s.487 rlw s.482-Sentence in two different criminal cases-Prayed in 
C separate and independent proceeding to run concurrently-Held, s.487 having 
not been invoked in original cases nor in appeals, separate application 
before High Court after dismissal of Special leave· Petition by Supreme 
Court, was not maintuinable-s.482 not an appropriate remedy in the case-
Sentencing-Penal Code, 
/860~ss. 120-B, 420, 468, 471-Prevention of 
D Corruption Act, 1947-s.5(1). 
Appellant, a Bank Manager, was convicted in two criminal cases u/ss. 
120B/420/467/471 IPC read with s.S (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 
1947. He was awarded rigorous imprisonment for 18 months in the first case 
a.nd 2 years in the second case. His appeals in both the cases were dismissed 
E by the High Court, so also. the Special Leave Petitions by the Supreme Court. 
Thereafter he filed a petition purported to be under sections 482/487 of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the High Court praying that the 
sentences imposed upon him in both the cases be directed to run concurrently. 
On dismissal of the said application, the accused filed the present appeal. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, the provision of s.427 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 was neither invoked in the original cases nor in 
the appeals. A separate application was filed before the High Court after the 
G special leave petitions were dismissed. Such an application was not 
maintainable. The High Court could not have exercised its inherent 
jurisdiction in a case of this nature as it had not exercised such jurisdiction 
while passing the judgments in appeal. Section 482 of the Code was, therefore, 
not an appropriate remedy having regard to the fact that neither the trial 
Judge, nor the High Court while passing the judgments of conviction and 
II 
1142 
M.R. KUDVA v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [S.B. SINHA, J.] 
l 143 
sentence indicated that the sentences passed against the appellant in both the A 
cases shall run concurrently or Section 427 would be attracted. The said 
provision, therefore, could not be applied in a separate and independent 
proceeding by the High Court. [1146-D-F) 
Mohd Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti v. Assistant Collector 
of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad and Anr., [1988] 4 sec 183, referred B 
to. 
Ammavassi and Anr. v. Inspector of Police, Val/iyanpur and Ors., AIR 
(2000) SC 3544, distinguished. 
t.2. The Sessions Judge while passing the judgment and conviction in C 
Criminal Case No. 5of1993 took note of the fact that the appellant had been 
'· 
convicted in Criminal Case No. 9of1992 also. He, however, categorically 
opined that the accused did not deserve any sympathy. [1145-D) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1330 of 
2006. 
D 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 17.10.2005 of the High Court 
of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 3917/ 
2005. 
V.B. Joshi for the Appellant. 
A. Sharan, A.S.G., Amit Pawan, P. Parmeshwaran and D. Bharathi Reddy 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted. 
E 
F 
Application of the provision of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') falls for consideration in this appeal 
which arises out of a judgment and order dated 17 .10.2005 passed by a 
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Petition G 
No. 3917 of2005. 
Appellant was a bank employee. He worked as a Manager in Syndicate 
Bank at its Branch at Abid Road, Hyderabad. His job was to advance loans. 
Allegedly, in one case he sanctioned a loan to a customer for Black & White 
Television, while the scheme was for something else. In another case he H 
1144 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 
A sanctioned a loan for obtaining plots from the Housing Society. The Central 
Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had also filed chargesheets against the appellant 
in both the cases. Two cases were, thus, came to be registered against him; 
one being Criminal Case No. 9of1992 and another being Criminal Case No. 
5 of 1993. The judgment in the first case was pronounced by the Special 
Judge, C.B.L Court on 04.07 .1997 whereby and whereunder he was convicted 
B for commission of offences punishable under Secti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.