Benefit U/s 427 CrPC Can Be Claimed Only Before The Court Dealing With The Subsequent Offences: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

The Kerala High Court has observed that the benefit under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be claimed only before the Court dealing with the subsequent offences.

Before the High Court, one of the main contentions of the appellant was that he was subsequently convicted by the same court for another offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,and, therefore, he is entitled to get the sentence imposed by the judgment under challenge run concurrently. The present appeal challenged his first conviction by the Trial Court in 2013.

Referring to the provisions of Section 427 of the Code, Justice K. Haripal noted that, in order to attract it, the following conditions have to be satisfied:

1.  A person already undergoing sentence of imprisonment stands convicted;
2. While undergoing such sentence such a person is subsequently convicted and awarded the sentence of imprisonment including imprisonment for life;
3. Such imprisonment of rigorous imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced; and,
4. The court directs that subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.

The Court rejected the appellant's contention that a sentence imposed on the appellant on an earlier point of time, can run concurrently with a sentence imposed on him long after imposing the first sentence. The Court also observed that the benefit under Section 427 cannot be conferred for transactions which are unrelated. In such cases, the sentences should run consecutively. While dismissing the appeal, it said:

"That is against the very purport of the statute. It should be the other way round. When the latter judgment was pronounced, the appellant should have brought the earlier conviction to the notice of the court and should have prayed for running the sentences concurrently, so that, if accepted, the appellant would have saved four years imprisonment. That power is vested with the court imposing the subsequent imprisonment or its appellate court."

"..Granting of prayer for concurrency depends on facts and circumstances of each case and the benefit under Section 427 of the Code can be claimed only before the Court trying the subsequent offences. Direction to run concurrently can be given only in appropriate cases by the Court imposing subsequent sentence of imprisonment; the appellate court dealing with subsequent conviction also can exercise the jurisdiction. In appropriate cases, such a benefit can be given by the High Court also, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. To put it in other words, seeking such a relief from the court dealing with the first conviction is totally out of place."  

Case name: MUSHTHAFA vs. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Case no.: CRL.A.No.992 OF 2013 

Coram: JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

Counsel: Adv. SUNNY MATHEW and PP D. CHANDRASENAN

Click here to Read/Download Judgment

Read Judgment