Default Sentences Cannot Be Directed To Run Concurrently: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the default sentences imposed on a convict cannot be directed to run concurrently.

In this case, the accused were convicted under 3(1)(ii) ,3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to imprisonment of 7/10 years. Rupees Five lacs fine was imposed on each and in default three years rigorous imprisonment was ordered. However, all the sentences was ordered to run concurrently.

In appeal, it was contended that the default sentences awarded to the convicts were on the excessive side given their economic conditions.

While considering these contentions, the bench of Justices UU Lalit and Ajay Rastogi noted that in Sharad Hiru Kilambe vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 718] it was held that the default sentence cannot be directed to run concurrently.

In the said judgment, the court had noted that Sections 31 and 427 of the Code which deal with substantive sentences, empower the courts in certain cases to direct concurrent running of more than one sentences. But no such specification is available in Section 64 of IPC and in Section 30 of the Code or in any other provision dealing with power to impose sentence of "imprisonment for non- payment of fine" or in connection with default sentence.  Taking note of this, the court held that default sentences cannot be directed to run concurrently.

The bench noted that in Sharad Hiru, the court had observed that the default sentence given to the concerned accused of three years each on three counts was found to be excessive.

"Similar situation obtains in the present matter and financial conditions of the appellants are also on the same lines. We therefore, proceed to grant similar relief to the present appellants and direct that the default sentences awarded to each of the appellants on aforesaid three counts shall be one year each in respect of such counts. Except for the modification indicated hereinabove, the rest of the conclusions including conviction and substantive sentences as well as imposition of fine remain unaltered.", the court ordered.

Case: Dumya Alias Lakhan Alias Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra ; CrA 818-820 OF 2021

Citation: LL 2021 SC 396

Coram: Justices UU Lalit and Ajay Rastogi

Counsel: Adv Pravin Satale for appellants, Adv Rahul Chitnis for state

Click here to Read/Download Order