High Court Can Exercise Jurisdiction U/S 482 CrPC & Direct That Sentence Imposed By Trial Court Shall Run Concurrently: Madras HC
The Madras High Court recently held that the scope of Section 427 CrPC is that, in respect of conviction to undergo the sentence of imprisonment passed on subsequent cases for the offence of same nature, the sentence shall run concurrently. The court also made it clear that it can exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC and issue direction that the sentence imposed by...
The Madras High Court recently held that the scope of Section 427 CrPC is that, in respect of conviction to undergo the sentence of imprisonment passed on subsequent cases for the offence of same nature, the sentence shall run concurrently. The court also made it clear that it can exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC and issue direction that the sentence imposed by the trial court shall run concurrently.
Justice G.K Ilanthiraiyan of Madurai Bench observed the above while deciding the petition filed by one Murugan @ Panni Murugan seeking directions that the sentences passed against him by the Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur in two cases to run concurrently.
The petitioner was convicted in two different cases on two different occasions. In the first case, he was charged under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. In the second case, he was charged for offences under Section 454 and 380 of IPC. In both the cases, he was sentenced to undergo three years imprisonment. The petitioner had therefore filed the petition praying that these two sentences run concurrently.
The Bench relied on the judgement of the Division Bench of Madras High Court in Selvakumar Vs. The Inspector of Police, Seidhunganallur Police Station and ors., 2018-2-LW(Crl)773 where the court relying on the decision of Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Chandra (1976) had held that-
"It is to be stated that invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C in order to grant the relief under Section 427, Cr.P.C would not amount to altering, varying or modifying the findings of the Trial Court or Appellate Court. On the other hand, it is always open to this Court to exercise power under Section 482, Cr.P.C to secure the ends of justice. It is needless to say that this Court has to exercise its judicial discretion for invoking the power under Section 482, Cr.P.C for granting the relief under Section 427, Cr.P.C, on the basis of the facts and circumstances and gravity of the charge levelled against the Accused in each case. In the result, we are answering the reference to the effect that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C, can very well be extended to issue a direction ordering the sentence imposed in a latter case on conviction to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in a former case as provided under Section 427, Cr.P.C."
The judgement also relied on the decision of A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in V. Venkateswarlu v. State of A.P, (1987) where it was held that the High Court, while exercising its Revisional jurisdiction suo motu or in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482, can direct the sentences to run concurrently as provided under Section 427, Cr.P.C, even though the convictions and sentences that have been passed by the Additional Sessions Judges of different Sessions Divisions have become final.
Reference was also made to the decision of a full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shersingh v. State of M.P, (1989) where it was held as under:
"Inherent powers of the High Court can be invoked under Section 482 even if the Trial Court or the appellate or Revisional Court has not exercised its discretion under Section 427(1) of the Code in directing running of previous and subsequent sentences concurrently. The inherent powers of the High Court is not in any way fettered by the provisions of Section 427(1) and it can be invoked at any stage even if there is no such order passed under Section 427(1) by the Trial Court or Appellate or Revisional Court and even though the conviction has become final."
Considering the view taken by the courts on previous occasions, the court deemed it fit to direct the sentences imposed on the petitioner to run concurrently.
Case Title: Murugan @ Panni Murugan v. The State rep. by Sub Inspector of Police and Anr.
Case No: Crl O.P No. 4142 of 2022
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. G Karuppusamy Pandiyan
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. B Thanga Aravindh (Governmetn Advocate)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 156