MOHD ZAHID versus STATE THROUGH NCB

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 372 · Decided: 07-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
372
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 372
372
MOHD ZAHID
v.
STATE THROUGH NCB
(Criminal Appeal No. 1457 of 2021)
DECEMBER 07, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.427 – Narcotics Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss. 23, 29 and s.21 –
Appellant-accused was held guilty by the PS Customs, Amritsar
u/s.23 and s.21 of the NDPS Act for recovery of 4 kg of heroin and
sentenced to undergo 12 years rigorous imprisonment (RI) –
Thereafter, he was again held guilty for the offence u/s.29 r/w. s.21(c)
of the NDPS Act after recovery of 750 grams of heroin from Delhi
and was sentenced for 10 years RI by the Trial Court at Delhi,
however, in view of the provisions of s.31 (ii) of the NDPS Act,
which provides for an enhanced punishment for offences after
previous conviction, and considering the fact that earlier appellant
was convicted for the offence under the NDPS Act by the Amritsar
Court, the Trial Court at Delhi awarded minimum sentence of 15
years RI – No specific order was passed by the Trial Court at Delhi
that the sentence imposed of 15 years RI would run concurrently or
consecutively – Plea to direct the subsequent sentence to run
concurrently with the previous sentence rejected by the High Court
– On appeal, held: In the instant case, the appellant was convicted
with respect to two different transactions, there are different crime
numbers and the cases have been decided by the different judgments
– Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to any benefit of concurrent
sentence u/s. 427 of Cr.P.C. – There is no specific order or direction
issued by the court while imposing the subsequent sentence that the
subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence
– As far as discretiory power u/s. 427 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, the
discretion shall not be in favour of the accused who is found to be
indulging in illegal trafficking in the narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances – Even while exercising discretion u/s. 427
of Cr.PC to run subsequent sentence concurrently with the previous
sentence, the discretion is to be exercised judiciously and depending
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
373
upon the offence/offences committed – Thus, plea to direct the
subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence
is rejected.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. From various decisions of the Supreme Court,
the principles of law that emerge are as under:-
(i) 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;
(ii) ordinarily the subsequent sentence would commence
at the expiration of the first term of imprisonment unless the
court directs the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with
the previous sentence;
(iii) the general rule is that where there are different
transactions, different crime numbers and cases have been
decided by the different judgments, concurrent sentence cannot
be awarded under Section 427 of Cr.PC;
(iv) under Section 427 (1) of Cr.PC the court has the power
and discretion to issue a direction that all the subsequent
sentences run concurrently with the previous sentence, however
discretion has to be exercised judiciously depending upon the
nature of the offence or the offences committed and the facts in
situation. However, there must be a specific direction or order
by the court that the subsequent sentence to run concurrently
with the previous sentence. [Para 9][386-D-H]
2. Applying the law laid down by this Court and the
principles of law enumerated hereinabove to the facts of the case
on hand, the submissions on behalf of the appellant – accused
that his subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous
sentence is to be rejected outright. In the present case the
appellant has been convicted with respect to two different
transactions, there are different crime numbers and the cases
MOHD ZAHID  v. STATE THROUGH NCB
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
374
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
have been decided by the different judgments. Therefore, the
appellant is not entitled to any benefit of concurrent sentence
under Section 427 of Cr.PC. As there is no specific order or
direction issued by the court while imposing the subsequent
sentence that the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with
the previous sentence. [

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