Concurrent conviction
satender
(Querist) 22 February 2014
This query is : Resolved
please answere the question relating relating as below:
(1)Delhi high court ordered CBI to investigate factual position concerning societies registered in the office of registrar.
(2)CBI registered 30 cases against person 'X' u/s 120B, 420, 468, 511 r/w 13(1)(d) under PC act and filed chargesheet. All the cases are under trial before different judges of delhi Courts.
(3)allegation by CBI against person 'X' in all 30 cases is same that he attempted to revive a defunct society on the basis of forged minutes of certain meeting.
(4) person 'X' is convicted in 25 cases each for 3 years.
(5)No where , The Honb'le Judges used discretionary powers as per section 427 Crpc and no judge mentions regarding running of conviction concurrent with previous conviction if any, despite requesting the judge for same to run concurently while announcing sentence.
(6) person 'X' is aged about 60 years at the time of pronouncing the sentence.
Question : In this circumstance will the conviction run one by one, if so the person 'x' will be supposed to come out of jail in 90 years, which is not practical and justiifiable as per right to life, because this situation will take his life.
If the conviction of all 25 cases will run concurrently, the person 'X' will come out of the jail in 3 years.
kindly educate me which situation will prevail.
What relief can be expected, if the same situatuation is adressed before honble judges of trial court, high courts or supreme as per law of land to render justice ?
Satender
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 22 February 2014
Since convictions are by different judges, the sentence would run concurrently.
Unless the judge specifically mentions, conviction for different crimes runs concurrently only.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 22 February 2014
Will run concurrently if not mentioned by the judge specifically.
Anirudh
(Expert) 22 February 2014
I think, the following discussion in Behari And Ors. vs The State AIR 1953 All 510 by Allahabad High Court would be of some help to you to clarify the point.
"5. When in the course of a transaction several offences are committed by an accused, for which of them he can be tried and convicted is a matter of procedure dealt with in Sections 233 to 239, Criminal P. C., and for which of them he can be punished is dealt with in Section 71, I. P. C.
If in one series of acts forming one transaction more offences than one are committed by an accused he may be charged with (and convicted of) for every such offence: Section 235 (1) of the Code. If the acts constitute
"an offence falling within two or more separate definitions ......... the person accused of them may be charged with and tried at one trial for each of such offences":
Section 235 (2).
"If several acts of which one or more of them would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute, when combined, a different offence",
the person accused of them may be charged with the offence constituted by such acts when combined and for any offence constituted by anyone or more of such acts: 235 (3). Thus under Section 235 (1) an accused can be convicted under Sections 225 and 332, or Ss. 454 and 497, or Sections 147, 325 and 152, I. P. C.; under Section 235 (2) he can be convicted under Sections 323 and 325, or Sections 317 and 304, or Sections 471 and 196, I. P. C., under Section 325(3), he can be convicted under Sections 323, 392 and 394, I. P. C. These examples are token from the illustrations to the section.
6. Section 71, I. P. C. is in three parts. The first part is:
"Where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of" such offences",
the second part is:
"Where anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force, the offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment than the court which tries him could award for any of such offences",
and the third part is:
"where several acts of which one or more would be itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute, when combined, a different offence, the offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment than the court could award for any such offence".
The first part deals with a continuous or continual series of similar acts each forming the same offence or offence of the same nature as the whole series; for instance, giving a man fifty strokes with a stick (see illustration (a) to Section 71), stealing five articles from an owner, abducting a female from her residence and taking her through several places in continuation etc. Illegally giving strokes with a stick is an offence punishable under Section 323, I. P. C.; as soon as one stroke is given, hurt is caused and the offence is completed. When the next stroke is given, hurt is again caused, and another offence committed. The same is the case with the examples of offences under Sections 379 and 366, I. P. C. There is nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent the accused from being convicted under Section 323, I. P. C. as many times as there are blows given by him. But when it comes to punishing him, the first part of Section 71, I. P. C. provides that he cannot be punished with the punishment of more than one of the offences. So for practical purposes, the whole beating is treated as one offence under Section 323 I. P. C. the whole act of stealing several articles is one offence under Section 379, I. P. C. and the whole act of abducting the female to various places is one offence under Section 366, I. P. C. If he cannot be punished more than once for the several offences committed by him, it would be no use convicting him of the several offences; that is why in practice only one charge under Section 323 or 379 or 366, I. P. C. is framed and only one conviction is recorded.
An important point to be noticed is that the first part deals with a case in which the whole of the act is punished under the same section under which its parts are punished; it does not deal with a case in which the whole act constitutes an offence different in nature from the offence or offences constituted by its parts. This is made clear not only by the illustration but also by the provision about the punishment. The provision is that the accused must not be punished with the punishment of more than one of the offences. The restriction is on the number of the sentences to be passed and not on the quantum. The very fact that he is required to be punished only once shows that otherwise he would be liable to be punished several times, i. e., several times for the same offence. Were the part dealing with a case in which the accused is liable for the various offences under different sections to punishments different from one another, the restriction would not have been that he should be punished only once or for only one offence; it would have been similar to that imposed under the second and third parts.
Another fact to be noticed is that there must be more than one act done by the accused; otherwise it cannot be split up into parts each of which must be an act. The second and the third parts deal with offences committed by an accused which are punishable under different sections to punishments different from one another and so the restriction is that he should not be punished more severely than he could be punished for any of those offences. Because the offences committed by him are different in nature, the legislature has provided that he can be punished upto the maximum provided for the gravest offences.
It is said in Ratan Lal's Law of Crimes that the first part provides for the punishment for cases similar to illustration (1) to Section 235 (2) of the Code, but that is obviously wrong. It provides for the punishment for offences, the trial of which is dealt with in Sections 234 and 235 (1). The second part provides for the punishment for an act punishable under two or more sections, the trial of which is dealt within Section 235 (2) of the Code. The third part provides for the punishment for a series of dissimilar acts some of which themselves are offences though differing from the offence constituted by the whole series, the trial of which is dealt with in Section 235 (3) of the Code. The third part is inapplicable when only one act is done by the accused.
As the second and the third parts deal with offences differing from one another committed by an accused, the restriction is not that he can be punished with the punishment of only one of the offences, but that he should not be given a punishment exceeding the maximum that could be given for any of the offences. The court is not expressly debarred from punishing him separately for the various offences committed by him, nor is it debarred from making the sentences for the various offences cumulative. There is only one restriction and it is that the punishment should not exceed the maximum provided for any of the offences. If the court inflicts separate sentences for the various offences and makes them cumulative, and the total does not exceed the maximum provided for any of those offences, or if it makes the sentences concurrent and the imprisonment to be suffered by the accused does not exceed the maximum provided for any of the offences, the law is fully complied with.
The language in which the restriction is couched suggests that the infliction of separate sentences for the various offences is not barred but rather contemplated. Of course, the restriction is capable of being interpreted to mean that the accused will be punished as if he had committed only the gravest of the offences committed by him. But it does not exclude the interpretation that he can be punished separately for the various offences committed by him provided the total punishment does not exceed the maximum provided for the gravest offence. Therefore, the infliction of separate sentences for the various offences, provided the limit is not exceeded, cannot be said to be against the law.
7. An accused must be convicted of every offence with which he has been charged and which is proved against him and this, regardless of whether he can separately be punished for every offence or not. Ordinarily he must be punished for every offence of which he has been found guilty. The sections under which he is convicted themselves lay down that he should be punished within certain limits. Section 71 is the .only section that places restrictions upon the separate punishment for every offence of which he is convicted. There are no other restrictions. If a case is not governed by Section 71, the accused is liable to be punished separately for each offence (of which he has been convicted) up to the maximum provided for it."
Anirudh
(Expert) 22 February 2014
In continuation of my earlier post, I also would like to point out the following:
S. 31, Cr.P.C., provides for ordering the sentences to run concurrently in a given case.
Section 427, Cr.P.C. lays down that when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.
S. 427, Cr.P.C. provides for directing the sentence awarded in the subsequent case to run concurrently with the previous sentence.
Even after such a sentence has become final nothing prevents the High Court to exercise its suo motu revisional jurisdiction or entertain an application under S. 482, Cr.P.C. and give the necessary directions as provided under S. 427, Cr.P.C.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 23 February 2014
Appreciating advise by the expert Mr. Anirudh, I concur and sentence awarded in the subsequent case to run concurrently with the previous sentence otherwise move to High Court for necessary directions.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 23 February 2014
I appreciate the painstaking explanation given by expert Mr. Anirudh on the subject that too very elaborately. and agree with his opinion that S. 427, Cr.P.C. provides for directing the sentence awarded in the subsequent case to run concurrently with the previous sentence.
