MOHD. AKHTAR HUSSAIN ALIAS IBRAHIM AHMED BHATTI versus ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTION) AHMEDABAD & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 747 · Decided: 31-08-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.L. OZA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MOHD. AKHTAR HUSSAIN ALIAS 
IBRAHIM AHMED BHATTI 
v. 
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTION) 
AHMEDABAD & ORS. 
AUGUST 31, 1988 
[G.L. OZA AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 
1973, Section 427-Sentence-
Concurrent or consecutive-Principles to be followed. 
The appellant was charged under section 85(l)(ii) of the Gold 
(Control) Act, 1968 pursuant to seizure of 7,000 tolas of foreign mark 
gold from his possession. He pleaded guilty to the charge and was 
convicted and sentenced to the maximum punishment of imprisonment 
for 7 years and tine of Rs. IO lakhs prescribed under the Act. On appeal, 
A 
B 
c 
the High Court confirmed that ,sentence but reduced the tine to Rs.5 D 
Iakhs. The Supreme Court confirmed the sentence in a special leave 
petition tiled by the appellant. While the appellant was under judicial 
custody, he was again prosecuted alongwith 18 others under section 135 
of the Customs Act for smuggling of gold and export of silver out of 
India. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge and was convicted and 
sentenced for 4 years R.I. with tine of Rs.2 lakhs by trial court. Both 
E 
the sentences were ordered to run consecutively. On appeal, the High 
Court enhanced the sentence from 4 years to the maximum prescribed 
punishment of 7 years on the ground that the enormity of the crime 
committed by the appellant warranted nothing else than the maximum 
sentence. 
F 
Allowing the appeal by th.e appellant on the question of sentence, 
HELD: I. Section 427, Cr. P.C. relates to administration of 
criminal justice and provides procedure for sentencing. The basic rule of 
thumb over the years has been the so called single transaction rule for 
concurrent sentences. If a given transaction constitutes two offences 
G 
under two enactments generally, it is wrong to have consecutive 
sentences. It is proper. and legitimate to have concurrent sentences. 
But this rule has no application if the transaction relating to offences 
is not the. same or the facts constituting the two offences are quite 
different. [751C, D-E] 
747 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
748 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ !988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
2(i) The enormity of the crime committed by the ace.used is 
relevant for measuring the sentence. But the maximum sentence 
awarded in one case against the same accused is not irrelevant for 
consideration While giving the consecutive sentence.in the second case· 
although it is grave. The court has to consider the totality of the 
sentences which the accused has to undergo if the sentences are to be 
consecutive. The totality principle has been accepted as correct princi-
ple for guidance. [753E-F) 
R. v. Edward Charles French, [1982) Cr. App. R. (S) p. I at 6, 
referred to. 
In the instant case, the trial court has properly considered all 
aspects including the plea of guilty and given good reasons for awarding 
4 years R.I. That means in all, the appellant has to undergo 11 years of 
imprisonment. That by itself is quite long enough in a man's life. But 
the High Court took a narrow view of the whole matter with the 
enormity of the crime on the forefront. [753G-H) 
2(ii) The broad·expanse of discretion left by legislation to sentenc-
ing courts should not be narrowed only to the seriousness of the offence. 
No single consideration can definitively determine the proper sentence. 
In arriving at an appropriate sentence, the court must consider, and 
some times reject, many factors. The court must 'recognise, learn to 
E 
control and exclude' many diverse data. It is a balancing act and tortu-
ous process. to ensure reasoned sentence. In consecutive sentences, in 
particular, the court cannot afford to be blind to imprisonment which 
the accused is already undergoing. [753H; 754A-B) 
3. Generally, it is both proper and customery for courts to give 
F 
credit to an accused for pleading guilty to the charge. But no credit need 
be given if the plea of guilty in the circumstance is inevitable or the 
accused has no alternative but to plead guilty. The accused being caught 
red handed is one such instance. [753B) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
Ci 
No. 467 of 1988. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20th July, 1987 of the 
Gujarat High Court in Cr!. Appeal No. 260/87 with Cr!. Appeal No. 
105/87 and Cr!. Appeal No. 444/87. 
H 
Soli J. Sorabji, Mukul Mudgal, E.K. Jose and P.H. Parekh for 
the Appellant. 
• AKHTAR HUSSAIN v. ASSTT. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [SHETIY, J.] 
749 
G.A. Shah, M.N. S

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