Section 427 CrPC - Concurrent Running Of Sentences Shall Not Be Allowed In Drug Trafficking Cases : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reiterated that discretion to direct subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence has to be exercised judiciously depending upon the nature of offences committed.

A Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna observed that in NDPS cases, even while applying discretion under Section 427 of Cr.PC, the discretion shall not be in favour of the accused who is found to be indulging in illegal trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

"...while awarding the sentence or punishment in case of NDPS Act, the interest of the society as a whole is required to be taken into consideration. Therefore, even while applying discretion under Section 427 of Cr.PC, the discretion shall not be in favour of the accused who is found to be indulging in illegal trafficking in the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances", the Court observed in the case Mohd Zahid vs State through NCB.

The observations have been made by the Top Court while considering the question as to whether the sentences imposed by two different courts in two different trials but against the same accused/person should run concurrently or consecutively.

The Bench was considering a special leave petition challenging Delhi High Court's order refusing to grant accused the relief and holding that sentences imposed in both the NDPS cases against him be run concurrently.

In the present case, the accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 12 years in one case followed by a sentence of 15 years rigorous imprisonment in another case, both being offences under the NDPS Act.

Considering the same, the Bench observed that no leniency should be shown to an accused who is found to be guilty of the offence under the NDPS Act.

The Bench also made strong remarks against those accused of dealing in narcotic drugs and for offences under the NDPS Act. 

"Those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instruments in causing death or in inflicting death blow to a number of innocent young victims who are vulnerable. Such accused causes deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society. They are hazard to the society," the Bench said.

The Bench further added that, "Such organised activities of clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have a deadly impact on the society as a whole."

According to the Bench, while awarding the sentence or punishment in case of NDPS Act, the interest of the society as a whole is required to be taken into consideration.

The Bench observed that considering the offences under the NDPS Act which are very serious in nature and against the society at large, no discretion shall be exercised in favour of such accused who is indulging into the offence under the NDPS Act.

Summarizes Principles under Section 427 CrPC

The Bench took note of the following principles of law that emerge from its previous judgements, including Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs, Ranjit Singh Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Anr, V.K. Bansal Vs. State of Haryana etc:

•  If a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such subsequent term of imprisonment would normally commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he was previously sentenced.
• Ordinarily, the subsequent sentence would commence at the expiration of the first term of imprisonment unless the court directs the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence.
• The general rule is that where there are different transactions, different crime numbers and cases have been decided by the different judgments, concurrent sentence cannot be awarded under Section 427 of Cr.PC.
• Under Section 427 (1) of Cr.PC the Court has the power and discretion to issue a direction that all the subsequent sentences run concurrently with the previous sentence, however discretion has to be exercised judiciously and there must be a specific direction.

Background:

In the present case, the accused has been convicted by two different courts in two different trials for the offences under the NDPS Act with respect to the different transactions.

• For having in possession of 4 kg of heroin, accused was sentenced to undergo 12 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 23 and Section 21 of the NDPS Act by Amritsar Court
• In another case for having 750 grams of heroin accused was sentenced to undergo 15 years RI for the offence under Section 29 read with Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act by Delhi Court.

The judgments were delivered in both the cases one after another and in the subsequent judgment and order of conviction and sentence by the Delhi court there was no specific order passed by the learned Trial Court at Delhi that the sentences were to run concurrently.

The present special leave petition was filed before the Supreme Court against Delhi High Court's order dismissing appeal of the accused and confirming Trial Court's order convicting him for an offence under Section 29 read with Section 21(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 years with a fine of Rs.1,50,000. The High Court refusing to grant accused the relief held that sentences imposed in both the NDPS cases against him be run concurrently.

Case Title: Mohd Zahid vs State through NCB 

Citation : LL 2021 SC 722

Click here to read/download the judgment