(Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Petition filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to direct the sentences imposed by this Hon ble Court in Criminal Appeal No. 929/1997 and 421 of 1997 dated: 29-7-2005, to run concurrently with each other and it is further prayed that this Honorable Court may be pleased to further direct those two sentences to run concurrently with the sentences imposed by this Hon ble Court in Criminal Appeal No. 653 and 654 of 2000 dated: 29-09-2005.)
The petitioner herein was sentenced to various periods of imprisonment in Criminal Appeal No. 929 of 1997 & Criminal Appeal No. 421 of 1997 and criminal Appeal Nos. 653 & 654 of 2000. The petitioner is undergoing imprisonment. The petitioner filed the present application praying this Court to direct the sentences confirmed by this Court in all the appeals to run concurrently with each other.
2. Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for sentencing of an offender who is already undergoing sentence of imprisonment. As per the above Section, the sentencing Court is required to consider and make an appropriate order as to how the sentence passed in the subsequent case is to run, whether it should be run concurrent or consecutive. The basic rules of thumb over the years have been the so called single transaction rule for concurrent sentences. If a given transaction constitutes two offences under two enactments generally, it is wrong to have consecutive sentences. It is proper and legitimate to have concurrent sentences. But this rule has no application if the transaction relating to offences is not the same or the facts constituting the two offences are quite different.
3. Section 427 Cr. P. C. reads as follows:
427. Sentence on offender already sentences for another offence.-
(1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence:
Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under Section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately.
(2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.
4. The learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to a judgment in Mohd. A. Hussain v. Asst. Collector, Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad (AIR 1988 SC 2143) wherein the Apex Court held as follows:
Section 427 relates to administration of criminal justice and provides procedure for sentencing. The sentencing court is, therefore, required to consider and make an appropriate order as to how the sentence passed in the subsequent case is to run. Whether it should be concurrent or consecutive? The basic rule of thumb over the years has been the so called single transaction rule for concurrent sentences. If a given transaction constitutes two offences under two enactments generally, it is wrong to have consecutive sentences. It is proper and legitimate to have concurrent sentences. But this rule has no application if the transaction relating to offences is not the same or the facts constituting the two offences are quite different.
Where the accused was in the first instance prosecuted under Gold (Control) Act for possession of primary gold prohibited under S.8 of that Act and in the second case prosecuted under Customs Act for smuggling of gold the two offences for which the accused was prosecuted were quite distinct and different though the case under the Customs Act may, to some extent, overlap the case under the Gold (Control) Act, the Courts would not be unjustified in directing that the sentences should be consecutive and not concurrent.
5. The offence is Criminal Appeal No. 421 of 1997 was in respect of the misappropriation of funds of the bank. In Criminal Appeal No. 929 of 1997 the offence relates to issuing forged cheques containing false endorsements of the same bank. The offence in Criminal Appeal No. 653 of 2000 relates to the production of false and forged FDR issued by A1 for the purpose of obtaining a loan. The offence in Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2000 relates to getting bogus bank guarantee issued by A1, basing on which A2 to A4 got bogus bills discounted for non-existent transaction with the same bank. Though these offences were detected during the course of inspection, separate cases have been filed by the concerned authorities against the same accused. Since the offences are related to the bank transaction, I am of the view that it would be just if the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
6. The Criminal M. Ps. are accordingly allowed. The sentences imposed by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 929 and 421 of 1997 dated 29-07-2005 shall run concurrently with each other and it is further directed that these two sentences shall run concurrently with the sentences imposed by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 653 and 654 of 2000 dated 29-09-2005.