SC: Default Sentences Cannot Be Directed To Run Concurrently

Background

• The name of the case was Dumya Alias Lakhan Alias Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra.
• The accused were charged under several provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
• They were convicted and sentenced to 7/10 years of imprisonment, Rs. 5,00,000 lacs fine and 3 years of rigorous imprisonment on default, all of which were to run concurrently.
• It was contended that the default sentences were excessive, considering the economic condition of the accused.

Court’s Reference

• The Bench relied on the judgment of Sharad Hiru Kilambe v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., where the Court had held that the default sentences cannot be run concurrently.
• The Court had stated that the Courts are empowered to order for the sentences to run concurrently but no provision specifies imposition of imprisonment for non-payment of fine imposed.
• The accused were given 3 years each for 3 counts which were held to be excessive.

Court Order

• The Court observed that the facts of the case were similar to that of Sharad Hiru case and the economic conditions were also similar to the accused in that case.
• The Supreme Court stated that a convict’s default sentences cannot be ordered to run concurrently.
• The Court reduced the default sentence of 1 year each on every count.
• The conviction in the matter was not altered and the fine was also held constant.

Do you think that the default sentences should be run concurrently or cumulatively? Tell us in the comments section below!