Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.427 – Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss. 23, 29 and s.21 – Appellant-accused was held guilty by the PS Customs, Amritsar u/s.23 and s.21 of the NDPS Act for recovery of 4 kg of heroin and sentenced to undergo 12 years rigorous imprisonment (RI) – Thereafter, he was again held guilty for the offence u/s.29 r/w. s.21(c) of the NDPS Act after recovery of 750 grams of heroin from Delhi and was sentenced for 10 years RI by the Trial Court at Delhi, however, in view of the provisions of s.31 (ii) of the NDPS Act, which provides for an enhanced punishment for offences after previous conviction, and considering the fact that earlier appellant was convicted for the offence under the NDPS Act by the Amritsar Court, the Trial Court at Delhi awarded minimum sentence of 15 years RI – No specific order was passed by the Trial Court at Delhi that the sentence imposed of 15 years RI would run concurrently or consecutively – Plea to direct the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence rejected by the High Court – On appeal, held: In the instant case, the appellant was convicted with respect to two different transactions, there are different crime numbers and the cases have been decided by the different judgments – Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to any benefit of concurrent sentence u/s. 427 of Cr.P.C. – There is no specific order or direction issued by the court while imposing the subsequent sentence that the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence – As far as discretiory power u/s. 427 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, 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 – Even while exercising discretion u/s. 427 of Cr.PC to run subsequent sentence concurrently with the previous sentence, the discretion is to be exercised judiciously and depending upon the offence/offences committed – Thus, plea to direct the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence is rejected.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. From various decisions of the Supreme Court, the principles of law that emerge are as under:-
(i) 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;
(ii) 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;
(iii) 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;
(iv) 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 depending upon the nature of the offence or the offences committed and the facts in situation. However, there must be a specific direction or order by the court that the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence. [Para 9][386-D-H]
2. Applying the law laid down by this Court and the principles of law enumerated hereinabove to the facts of the case on hand, the submissions on behalf of the appellant – accused that his subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence is to be rejected outright. In the present case the appellant has been convicted with respect to two different transactions, there are different crime numbers and the cases have been decided by the different judgments. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to any benefit of concurrent sentence under Section 427 of Cr.PC. As there is no specific order or direction issued by the court while imposing the subsequent sentence that the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence. [Para 10][387-A-C]
3. Even otherwise as observed hereinabove under Section
427 (1) of Cr.PC, the Court has the power and discretion to issue a direction that the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence in that case also, the discretion has to be exercised judiciously depending upon the nature of offence or the offences committed. In the present case the appellant – accused has been convicted for the offences under the NDPS Act. He has been convicted in one case for recovery of 4 kg heroin and sentenced to undergo 12 years RI and in another case there is a recovery of 750 grams of heroin and considering the Section 31 (ii) of the NDPS Act, he has been sentenced to undergo
15 years RI. No leniency should be shown to an accused who is found to be guilty for the offence 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. Such organized 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. Therefore, 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. As observed hereinabove, even while exercising discretion under Section 427 of Cr.PC to run subsequent sentence concurrently with the previous sentence, the discretion is to be exercised judiciously and depending upon the offence/offences committed. Therefore, 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. [Para 11][387-C-H; 388-A-B]
4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the submissions on behalf of the appellant – accused to direct the subsequent sentence by the Trial Court at Delhi in case arising out of FIR No.43/1999 to run concurrently with the previous sentence by the PS Customs, Amritsar arising out of FIR No.134/1999 is hereby rejected. [Para 12][388-B-C]
Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad & Anr. (1988) 4 SCC 183 : [1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 747; Ranjit Singh Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Anr. (1991) 4 SCC 304 : [1991] 3 SCR 742; V. K. Bansal Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (2013) 7 SCC 211 : [2013]
7 SCR 617 – relied on.
Neera Yadav Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2017)
8 SCC 757 : [2017] 8 SCR 498; Vicky @ Vikas Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 11 SCC 540; Gurdev Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2021) 6 SCC 558; Sharad Hiru Kolambe Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 718 : [2018] 11 SCR 720; Rajpal Vs. Om Prakash & Anr. (2019) 17 SCC 809; Gulam Mohammad Malik Vs. State of Gujrat and Anr. (2018) 14 SCC 473 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.