IQRAM versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS on 16 December 2022

[2022] 16 S.C.R. 51

IQRAM

v.

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS

(Criminal Appeal No. 2319 of 2022)

DECEMBER 16, 2022

[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI ANDPAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – s. 427 – Sentences in multipletrials – Appellant sought concurrent running of sentences – Theappellant was charged and put to trial in respect of the nine distinctFIRs relating to incidents involving theft of electricity equipments –Nine Session trials were conducted and consequently the accusedwas convicted by nine separate judgments – No specific directionwas issued by the trial Court as to allow the subsequent sentencesto run concurrently – Net consequence of the position emerged thatappellant had to undergo a total term of imprisonment of 18 years– Writ petition before the High Court – The High Court held that inview of the s.427 of Cr.P.C each subsequent term of conviction hasto commence at the expiration of imprisonment currently undergoneby the appellant – On appeal, held: s. 427 confers a discretion onthe court to direct that the subsequent sentence following a convictionshall run concurrently with the previous sentence – The High Courtought to have noticed the serious miscarriage of justice which wouldoccur consequent upon the trial court not having exercisedspecifically its discretion within the ambit of s.427(1) – The right topersonal liberty is a precious and inalienable right recognized bythe Constitution – The High Court ought to have intervened by settingright the miscarriage of justice which would occur in the abovemanner, leaving the appellant to remain incarcerated for a periodof 18 years – Sentences directed to be run concurrently – Impugnedjudgment of the High Court set aside – Electricity Act.

Mohd Zahid v. State through NCB 2021 SCC OnLineSC 1183 – relied on.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.2319 of 2022.

51

A

B

CD

EF

G

H

AFrom the Judgment and Order dated 24.03.2022 of the High Courtof Judicature for UP at Allahabad in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.460 of 2021.

Md. Anas Chaudhary, Ms. Shehla Chaudhary, Ansar AhmadChaudhary, Advs. for the Appellant.B

Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Divyanshu Sahay, Advs. for theRespondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJIC1. Leave granted.

2. The facts of the present case provide another instance, a glaringone at that, indicating a justification for this Court to exercise its jurisdictionas a protector of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty inheringin every citizen. If the Court were not to do so, a serious miscarriage ofDjustice of the nature which has emerged in the present case would beallowed to persist and the voice of a citizen whose liberty has beenabrogated would receive no attention. The history of this Court indicatesthat it is in the seemingly small and routine matters involving grievancesof citizens that issues of moment, both in jurisprudential and constitutionalterms, emerge. The intervention by this Court to protect the liberty ofEcitizens is hence founded on sound constitutional principles embodied inPart III of the Constitution. The Court is entrusted with judicial powersunder Article 32 and Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The right topersonal liberty is a precious and inalienable right recognised by theConstitution. In attending to such grievances, the Supreme Court performsFa plain constitutional duty, obligation and function; no more and no less.

3. The appellant was charged with and put to trial in respect ofnine distinct first information reports relating to alleged incidents involvingthe theft of electricity equipment belonging to the Electricity Departmentof the State of Uttar Pradesh.G

4. Nine sessions trials were conducted by the Additional Districtand Sessions Judge-I, Hapur[1]. The number of accused in each of thesessions trial varies. The appellant was the constant feature in all thenine trials.

H1 SST Nos 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448 and 467 of 2020

5. The appellant agreed to a plea bargain. The Additional Districtand Sessions Judge, Hapur by nine separate judgments dated 5 November2020, convicted the accused. The appellant was convicted of an offenceunder Section 136 of the Electricity Act. The accused had been confinedin jail as under-trials for varying periods. The Additional Sessions Judgesentenced the appellant to two years’ simple imprisonment together witha fine of Rs 1000/- in each of the nine cases. The Sessions Judge,however, directed that the period of custody as an under-trial shall beset off against the period of sentence. Where the conviction was of anoffence under Section 136 of the Electricity and Section 411 of the IndianPenal Code, the trial Judge directed that the sentence shall runconcurrently.

6. The appellant is in jail for a period of three years. The appellantmoved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, beingHabeas Corpus Writ Petition No 460 of 2021, before the High Court ofJudicature at Allahabad. The High Court noted that the writ petition wasfiled on the premise that the sentences of the appellant in nine separateand distinct cases should run concurrently. The grievance of the appellantwas that the jail authorities were not justified in treating the sentences tobe consecutive.

7. The Division Bench of the High Court has come to the conclusionthat in view of the provisions of Section 427 of the Code of CriminalProcedure 1973[2], each subsequent term of conviction has to commenceat the expiration of the imprisonment currently being undergone by theappellant.

8. The net consequence of the position, as it emerges, is that theappellant would have to undergo a total term of imprisonment of 18years in respect of the nine convictions for offences under Section 136of the Electricity Act and cognate provisions.

9. The plea bargain was with reference to the provisions of ChapterXXI-A of the CrPC. Section 265-G stipulates that the judgment deliveredby the Court shall be final and no appeal (except a Special Leave Petitionunder Article 136 and a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of theConstitution) shall lie in any court against such a judgment.

10. Section 427 provides that when a person already undergoinga sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to2 “CrPC”

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aimprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonmentfor life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to whichhe has been previously sentenced, unless the court directs that thesubsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.In other words, sub-section (1) of Section 427 confers a discretion onthe court to direct that the subsequent sentence following a convictionBshall run concurrently with the previous sentence.

11. In Mohd Zahid Vs State through NCB[3], this Court interpretedthe provisions of Section 427 of CrPC after duly considering theprecedents in the following terms :

C“33. Thus from the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the principlesof law that emerge are as under:

(i) if a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonmentis sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment,such subsequent term of imprisonment would normallyDcommence at the expiration of the imprisonment to whichhe was previously sentenced;

(ii) ordinarily the subsequent sentence would commence at theexpiration of the first term of imprisonment unless the courtdirects the subsequent sentence to run concurrently withEthe previous sentence;

(iii) the general rule is that where there are different transactions,different crime numbers and cases have been decided bythe different judgments, concurrent sentence cannot beawarded under Section 427 Cr.P.C.;

F(iv)under Section 427(1) of Cr.PC the court has the power anddiscretion to issue a direction that all the subsequentsentences run concurrently with the previous sentence,however discretion has to be exercised judiciously dependingupon the nature of the offence or the offences committedand the facts in situation. However, there must be a specificGdirection or order by the court that the subsequent sentenceto run concurrently with the previous sentence.”

12. The Trial judge, in the present case, granted a set off withinthe ambit of Section 428/Section 31 CrPC. No specific direction was H3 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1183

issued by the trial court within the ambit of Section 427(1) so as to allowthe subsequent sentences to run concurrently. All the convictions tookplace on the same day.

13. Once the petitioner espoused the remedy of moving a WritPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court ought tohave noticed the serious miscarriage of justice which would occurconsequent upon the trial court not having exercised specifically itsdiscretion within the ambit of Section 427(1). When the appellant movedthe High Court, he was aggrieved by the conduct of the jail authorities inconstruing the direction of the trial court to mean that each of thesentences would run consecutively at the end of the term of previoussentence and conviction. The High Court ought to have intervened inthe exercise of its jurisdiction by setting right the miscarriage of justicewhich would occur in the above manner, leaving the appellant to remainincarcerated for a period of 18 years in respect of his conviction andsentence in the nine sessions trials for offences essentially under theElectricity Act.

14. In view of the above discussion, we allow the appeal and setaside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 24 March 2022.We order and direct that the sentences which have been imposed on theappellant in the nine sessions trials noticed in the earlier part of thisjudgment shall run concurrently.

15. The jail authorities shall now act immediately on the productionof a certified copy of this order.

16. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Ankit Gyan(Assisted by : Rahul Rathi, LCRA)

Appeal allowed.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H