Madras High Court
Vishnu Shetti vs The Inspector Of Police on 14 November, 2024
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.O.P.No.22706 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Orders Reserved on : 05.11.2024
Orders Pronounced on : 14.11.2024
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.O.P.No.22706 of 2024
--
1. Vishnu Shetti
2. Krushna Jadhav
(Both the petitioners are now
confined as Convicted prisoner,
Central Prison-I, Puzhal, Chennai-66) .. Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
Vishnu Kanchi Police Station,
Kanchipuram District.
(Cr.Nos.730, 736 and 737 of 2022)
2. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison-I,
Puzhal, Chennai-600 066. .. Respondents
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 467(1) read with Section 528
of BNSS, 2023, praying to issue a direction to the respondents to concurrent all
the sentences passed against the petitioners in C.C.No.227 of 2022, C.C.No.226
of 2022 and C.C.No.216 of 2022, dated 15.03.2023 by the Judicial Magistrate
No.1, Kanchipuram.
For petitioners : Mr.P.Pugalenthi
For respondents : Mr.S.Sugendran, Addl.P.P.
Page No.1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22706 of 2024
ORDER
This petition has been filed praying to issue direction to the respondents to make the sentences imposed on the petitioners/accused, to run concurrently, passed against the petitioners in C.C.No.227 of 2022, C.C.No.226 of 2022 and C.C.No.216 of 2022, dated 15.03.2023 by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kanchipuram.
2. The petitioners are A3 and A4 in Crime Nos.730, 736 and 737 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent-Police. They were arrested on 29.09.2022 by the Kanchipuram Police and are implicated in Crime Nos.730, 736 and 737 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent-Police Station and remanded to judicial custody in all the three cases. After investigation, the first respondent filed charge-sheet in C.C.Nos.227, 226 and 216 of 2022 before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kanchipuram in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC, for each of the three cases. After trial, they were convicted and sentenced as detailed in the following tabular column:
Sl. Crime number C.C.Nos. Conviction and sentence No. Under Section 457 IPC - 2 years RI and fine of 1 Cr.No.730 of 2022 C.C.No.227 of 2022 Rs.1,000/-, in default, one month SI Page No.2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.22706 of 2024 Sl. Crime number C.C.Nos. Conviction and sentence No. Under Section 380 IPC -
one year RI and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default one month SI Under Section 457 IPC - 2 years RI and fine of 2 Cr.No.736 of 2022 C.C.No.226 of 2022 Rs.1,000/-, in default, one month SI Under Section 380 IPC -
one year RI and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default one month SI Under Section 457 IPC - 2 years RI and fine of 3 Cr.No.737 of 2022 C.C.No.216 of 2022 Rs.1,000/-, in default, one month SI Under Section 380 IPC -
one year RI and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default one month SI
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/A3 and A4 contended that while passing the judgment of conviction and sentence, instead of directing those sentences to run concurrently, the trial Court had not even mentioned anything about the running of sentences of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners. All the three judgments were pronounced on the same day, i.e. on 15.03.2023 and they have not claimed any benefits of sentence awarded in all the three cases, which ought to have been made to run concurrently. Page No.3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.22706 of 2024
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the petitioners have undergone the sentences for more than two years and therefore, they have filed the present petition for considering the same on humanitarian grounds for directing the sentences imposed on them to run concurrently.
5. This Court also heard the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents, on the above aspects.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. Admittedly, the petitioners are A3 and A4 in the above said three cases and after trial, they were convicted and sentenced as tabulated above. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance of the judgment of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.23379 of 2021 (R.Vinod Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police and 2 others), dated 08.03.2022. The relevant portion of the above judgment of this Court is extracted hereunder:
"7. In view of the above judgments, the scope of Section 427 of Cr.P.C. is that, in respect of conviction to undergo the sentence of imprisonment passed on subsequent cases for the offence of same nature shall go concurrently. It is also clear that this Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and issue direction that the sentence imposed by the Trial Court to run concurrently.Page No.4/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.22706 of 2024
8. In the case on hand, the petitioner was convicted for similar offences in different Calendar Cases by the same Trial Court by separate judgments. In each case, the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment separately for offence under Section 411 IPC. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.No.289 of 2016 dated 20.08.2019, C.C.No.291 of 2016, dated 29.08.2019, C.C.No.292 of 2016, dated 29.08.2019, C.C.No.290 of 2016, dated 06.09.2019 and C.C.No.51 of 2017 dated 06.09.2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore shall run concurrently.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed."
8. Though the Court below sentenced the petitioners at the time of passing the judgment of conviction and sentence, but the petitioners did not claim before the trial Court while passing the judgment of conviction, to undergo the sentences concurrently. Now that the petitioners are convicted and sentenced to undergo in respect of the said offences, and this petition is filed under Sections 467(1) of BNSS, 2023 praying for running the sentences concurrently.
9. In the above context, it is useful to extract Sections 467(1) of BNSS, as Page No.5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.22706 of 2024 follows:
"Section 467: Sentence on offender already sentenced 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 141 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."
10. It is not the case of the petitioners/A3 and A4 that they have already been convicted in some other case and were undergoing the sentence and they Page No.6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.22706 of 2024 were convicted presently for the offences as tabulated above. They were also not previously convicted for any other offence including the life sentence. In the present case, they were tried together, but simultaneously and they were convicted and sentenced on the same day as tabulated above. Hence, Section 467(1) of the BNSS is not applicable to the case of the petitioners herein.
11. Further, the petitioners have already undergone the sentence of imprisonment for two years and are in prison from 15.03.2023 and after undergoing the sentence of imprisonment, they cannot invoke Section 467(1) of BNSS.
12. Further, Section 467(1) of BNSS makes it clear that when a person is 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.
13. In the case on hand, the petitioners are involved in the offences in three cases of similar nature, and they were tried separately and were convicted and sentenced as tabulated supra. The judgments were rendered in all these cases on the same day. This shows that the petitioners/A3 and A4 are involved in the three cases and same sentence of imprisonment is imposed on them in Page No.7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.22706 of 2024 respect of three cases. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners/A3 and A4 are habitual offenders. In these circumstances, the decision of this Court indicated above, is not applicable to the present case on hand
14. On a reading of Sections 467(1) of BNSS, it is evident that the petitioners are not entitled to seek for running the sentences imposed on them concurrently in all the three cases. They have to undergo the sentences of imprisonment only consecutively.
15. With the above observations, this Crl.O.P. is dismissed.
14.11.2024 cs To
1. The Inspector of Police, Vishnu Kanchi Police Station, Kanchipuram District.
(Cr.Nos.730, 736 and 737 of 2022)
2. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-I, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.
3. The Judicial Magistrate-I, Kanchipuram.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Page No.8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.22706 of 2024 P.VELMURUGAN, J cs Pre-delivery Order in Crl.O.P.No.22706 of 2024 Order pronounced on 14.11.2024 Page No.9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis