Madras High Court
Manikandan vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 6 February, 2024
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8479 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.02.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8479 of 2022
Manikandan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Crime Branch,
Tallakulam Police Station,
Madurai.
(Crime Nos.571, 636 and 637 of 2015)
2.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Koodal Pudhur Police Station,
Madurai.
(Crime Nos.344, 431, 433, 459 and 513 of 2015)
3.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Central Police Station,
Tuticorin.
(Crime No.424 of 2015)
4.The Sub Inspector of Police,
K.Pudhur Police Station,
Madurai.
(Crime Nos.454 and 585 of 2015)
5.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Subramaniyapuram Crime Branch Police Station,
Madurai.
(Crime Nos.455, 541, 850 and 845 of 2015)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/24
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8479 of 2022
6.The Sub Inspector of Police,
SIPCOT Police Station,
Tuticorin.
(Crime No.305 of 2015)
7.The Sub Inspector of Police,
C-3, S.S. Colony Police Station,
Madurai.
(Crime Nos.386, 429, 512, 569, 739, 754 and 794 of 2015)
8.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Karimedu Crime Branch Police Station,
Madurai.
(Crime Nos.312, 470 and 496 of 2015)
9.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Thilagar Thidal Police Station,
Madurai.
(Crime Nos.489 and 545 of 2015)
10.The Superintendent,
Madurai Central Prison, Madurai. ... Respondents
PRAYER:- Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the petitioner
to undergo the sentences imposed on him in C.C.Nos.159, 159 and 164 of 2016
on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, C.C.Nos.257, 317,
320 and 321 of 2016, C.C.No.78 of 2017, C.C.Nos.191 and 396 of 2018 and
C.C.Nos.357 and 358 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.IV, Madurai, C.C.No.278 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Tuticorin, C.C.Nos.141, 142 and 200 of 2017 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Central Prison, Madurai, C.C.Nos.291 and 349 of
2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, C.C.No.80
of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin, C.C.Nos.
74, 75, 76, 77, 108, 109, 115 and 298 of 2017 and C.C.No.739 of 2019 on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/24
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8479 of 2022
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai, concurrently and upon
completion of such sentence to direct the 11th respondent to release the
petitioner forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.Poornachandaran
for M/s.D.Deepamathi
For Respondents : Mr.B.Nambiselvan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the petitioner to undergo the sentences imposed on him in C.C.Nos.159, 159 and 164 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, C.C.Nos.257, 317, 320 and 321 of 2016, C.C.No.78 of 2017, C.C.Nos.191 and 396 of 2018 and C.C.Nos.357 and 358 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai, C.C.No.278 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tuticorin, C.C.Nos.141, 142 and 200 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Central Prison, Madurai, C.C.Nos.291 and 349 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, C.C.No.80 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin, C.C.Nos.
74, 75, 76, 77, 108, 109, 115 and 298 of 2017 and C.C.No.739 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai, concurrently and upon https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/24 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8479 of 2022 completion of such sentence to direct the 11th respondent to release the petitioner forthwith.
2.The case of the petitioner is that petitioner had been implicated as one of the accused in 28 criminal cases registered on the file of the respondents police under various crime numbers. The petitioner faced trial in all the cases and upon his admission of guilt, he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo prison. The cases registered against the petitioner and the punishments imposed by the Courts below are as follows:
Sl. Sentence of
C.C. No. Court Date
No imprisonment and fine
1. 158 of 2016 On the file of learned 02.12.2016 2 years simple
Judicial Magistrate No.II. imprisonment under
Madurai section 457 IPC.
2 years simple
imprisonment under
section 380 r/w 34 IPC
* both sentences is to run
concurrently
2. 159 of 2016 On the file of learned 02.12.2016 2 years simple
Judicial Magistrate No.II. imprisonment under
Madurai section 457 IPC.
2 years simple
imprisonment under
section 380 IPC
* both sentences is to run
concurrently
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/24 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8479 of 2022
3. 164 of 2016 On the file of the learned 02.12.2016 2 years simple Judicial Magistrate No.II, imprisonment under Madurai. section 457 IPC.
2 years simple
imprisonment under
section 380 IPC
* both sentences is to run
concurrently
4. 257 of 2016 On the file of the learned 04.08.2017 24 months simple
Judicial Magistrate No.IV, imprisonment under
Madurai. section 457 IPC.
24 months simple
imprisonment under
section 380 IPC
* both sentences is to run
concurrently
5. 317 of 2016 On the file of the learned 04.08.2017 2 years under Section 457 Judicial Magistrate No.IV, IPC.
Madurai.
2 years under section 380 IPC * both sentences is to run concurrently
6. 320 of 2016 On the file of the learned 04.08.2017 6 months simple Judicial Magistrate No.IV, imprisonment under Madurai. Section 457 IPC.
6 months simple
imprisonment under
Section 380 IPC.
* both sentences is to run
concurrently
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/24 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8479 of 2022
7. 321 of 2016 On the file of the learned 04.08.2017 24 months simple Judicial Magistrate No.IV, imprisonment under Madurai. Section 457 IPC.
24 months simple
imprisonment under
Section 380 IPC
* both sentences is to run
concurrently.
8. 78 of 2017 On the file of the learned 04.08.2017 12 months simple
Judicial Magistrate No.IV, imprisonment under
Madurai. Section 457 IPC.
12 months simple
imprisonment under
Section 380 IPC
* both sentences is to run
concurrently.
9. 191 of 2018 On the file of the learned 22.06.2018 1 year simple
Judicial Magistrate No.IV, imprisonment under
Madurai. Section 457 IPC.
1 year simple
imprisonment under
Section 380 IPC
* both sentences is to run
concurrently.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/24 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8479 of 2022
10. 396 of 2018 On the file of the learned 21.02.2019 3 years rigorous Judicial Magistrate No.IV, imprisonment under Madurai. Section 457 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1000 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further period of 3 months simple imprisonment.
1 year rigorous
imprisonment under
Section 380 IPC and to
pay a fine of Rs.1000 and
in default of payment of
fine, to undergo further
period of 3 months
simple imprisonment.
* both sentences is to run
concurrently.
11. 357 of 2019 On the file of the learned 11.04.2019 1 year simple
Judicial Magistrate No.IV, imprisonment under
Madurai. Section 457 IPC.
1 year simple
imprisonment under
Section 380 r/w 511 IPC.
* both sentences is to run
concurrently.
12. 358 of 2019 On the file of the learned 11.04.2019 1 year simple
Judicial Magistrate No.IV, imprisonment under
Madurai. Section 457 IPC.
1 year simple
imprisonment under
Section 380 r/w 511 IPC.
* both sentences is to run
concurrently.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/24 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8479 of 2022
13. 278 of 2016 On the file of the learned 08.06.2016 2 years under Section 457 Judicial Magistrate No.II, IPC.
Tuticorin 2 years under Section 380 IPC.
* both sentences is to run concurrently.
14. 141 of 2017 On the file of the learned 04.08.2017 6 months simple Judicial Magistrate, imprisonment under presided over at Central Section 457 r/w 511 IPC. Prison Campus, Madurai * both sentences is to run concurrently.
15. 142 of 2017 On the file of the learned 04.08.2017 6 months simple Judicial Magistrate, imprisonment under presided over at Central Section 457 IPC.
Prison Campus, Madurai
6 months simple
imprisonment under
Section 380 IPC.
* both sentences is to run
concurrently.
16. 200 of 2017 On the file of the learned 28.09.2017 18 months simple
Judicial Magistrate, imprisonment under
presided over at Central Section 457 IPC.
Prison Campus, Madurai
18 months simple
imprisonment under
Section 380 r/w 34 IPC.
* both sentences is to run
concurrently.
17. 291 of 2016 On the file of the learned 08.12.2016 3 months simple
Judicial Magistrate No.VI, imprisonment under
Madurai. Section 457 IPC.
3 months simple
imprisonment under
Section 380 IPC.
* both sentences is to run
concurrently.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/24 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8479 of 2022
18. 349 of 2016 On the file of the learned 08.12.2016 3 months simple Judicial Magistrate No.VI, imprisonment under Madurai. Section 457 IPC.
3 months simple
imprisonment under
Section 380 r/w 34 IPC
* both sentences is to run
concurrently.
19. 80 of 2017 On the file of the learned 16.03.2017 1 year 4 months simple Judicial Magistrate No.I, imprisonment under Tuticorin. Section 454 IPC and to pay a sum of Rs.100 and in default of payment of fine to undergo one week simple imprisonment.
1 year 4 months simple
imprisonment under
Section 380 IPC and to
pay a sum of Rs.100 and
in default of payment of
fine to undergo one week
simple imprisonment.
* both sentences is to run
concurrently.
20. 74 of 2017 On the file of the learned 04.08.2017 1 year simple
Judicial Magistrate No.V, imprisonment under
Madurai. Section 457 IPC.
1 year simple
imprisonment under
Section 380 IPC.
* both sentences is to run
concurrently.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/24 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8479 of 2022
21. 75 of 2017 On the file of the learned 04.08.2017 1 year simple Judicial Magistrate No.V, imprisonment under Madurai. Section 457 IPC.
1 year simple
imprisonment under
Section 380 IPC.
* both sentences is to run
concurrently.
22. 76 of 2017 On the file of the learned 04.08.2017 1 year simple
Judicial Magistrate No.V, imprisonment under
Madurai. Section 457 IPC.
1 year simple
imprisonment under
Section 380 IPC.
6 months simple
imprisonment under
Section 511 IPC.
* both sentences is to run
concurrently.
23. 77 of 2017 On the file of the learned 04.08.2017 1 year simple
Judicial Magistrate No.V, imprisonment under
Madurai. Section 457 IPC.
1 year simple
imprisonment under
Section 380 IPC.
* both sentences is to run
concurrently.
24. 108 of 2017 On the file of the learned 04.08.2017 1 year simple
Judicial Magistrate No.V, imprisonment under
Madurai. Section 457 IPC.
1 year simple
imprisonment under
Section 380 r/w 34 IPC.
* both sentences is to run
concurrently.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/24 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8479 of 2022
25. 109 of 2017 On the file of the learned 04.08.2017 1 year simple Judicial Magistrate No.V, imprisonment under Madurai. Section 457 IPC.
1 year simple
imprisonment under
Section 380 r/w 34 of
IPC.
* both sentences is to run
concurrently.
26. 115 of 2017 On the file of the learned 04.08.2017 1 year simple
Judicial Magistrate No.V, imprisonment under
Madurai. Section 457 IPC.
1 year simple
imprisonment under
Section 380 IPC.
* both sentences is to run
concurrently.
27. 298 of 2017 On the file of the learned 16.03.2018 12 months simple
Judicial Magistrate No.V, imprisonment under
Madurai. Section 457 IPC.
12 months simple
imprisonment under
Section 380 r/w 511 IPC.
* both sentences is to run
concurrently.
28. 739 of 2019 On the file of the learned 26.07.2019 1 year simple
Judicial Magistrate No.V, imprisonment under
Madurai. Section 457 IPC.
1 year simple
imprisonment under
Section 380 r/w 34 IPC.
* both sentences is to run
concurrently.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/24 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8479 of 2022 As per the sentences of imprisonment imposed by the Courts below, as stated above, he has to undergo 51 years of imprisonment if the sentences of each case are executed separately. In order to abide by the benefit available under Section 427 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner filed the present petition with the above said prayer.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue arises in the present petition is no longer res integra and the same issue was considered by this Court and passed order granting the benefit in favour of the petitioner under Section 427 of Cr.P.C., and ordered for the punishment to run concurrently. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing this petition.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the power available under Section 427 of Cr.P.C., is a discretionary power and if the Courts satisfy, the petitioner is entitled to suffer the punishment concurrently and this Court may consider and pass appropriate orders.
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/24 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8479 of 2022
6.In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Selvakumar Vs. The Inspector of Police, Seidhunganallur Police Station and others reported in 2008-2-LW(Crl.)773, wherein it is held as follows:
“11.The scope of Section 427(2) of Cr.P.C. is that in respect of the convict undergoing imprisonment for life, the sentence of the imprisonment passed on subsequent conviction shall run concurrently. The reason being that the sentence for life must be understood to mean as the sentence to serve remainder of life in prison unless commuted or remitted by the appropriate authority and the person having only one life span, the sentence on the subsequent conviction of imprisonment for a term of imprisonment for life can only be superimposed the earlier life sentence and certainly not added to it.
12.A Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider a case of similar nature in K. Arasan and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, reported in MANU/TN/1953/2012 : 2012 (6) CTC 510. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder.
“2. The crux of the question involved in this matter is that whether this Court can invoke the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C”] for granting the relief under Section 427, Cr.P.C, for ordering the sentence imposed in the former case to run concurrently along with the sentence of imprisonment awarded in the latter case.
3. It is seen that two conflicting views expressed by two learned Single Judges in respect of invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C for granting the relief of ordering the subsequent sentence to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/24 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8479 of 2022 run concurrently with the previous sentence awarded against a person in an earlier case which necessitated the learned referring Single Judge to refer the matter to a Division Bench to resolve the said conflict between two decisions. It is seen that a learned Single Judge in A. Palanisamy @ Kaithan v. Inspector of Police, B1 Police Station, Kadaiveethi, Coimbatore, 2011 (3) MWN (Cr.) 555 : 2011 (4) MLJ (Crl.) 813, after referring to various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, has held in paragraph 27, as here-under. 27. In the instant case on hand also, the provision of Section 427, Cr.P.C was not invoked either in the original cases or in the Appeals. Under the above said circumstances, Section 427, Cr.P.C cannot be applied in a separate and independent proceedings by this Court in exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C.
4. Another learned Single Judge in A. Paulraj v. Maria Chellammal, 2011 (4) MLJ (Crl.) 798, has taken a contrary view by placing reliance on the decision of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court and held as hereunder:
“26. Since the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Madhan Lal [supra] had considered on Application filed, under Section 482, Cr.P.C the decision rendered in M.S Kudva v. State of Andhra Pradesh [supra] may not be applicable and invoking jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C is indeed available to the Petitioner.”
5. We have gone through the above two conflicting decisions rendered by the two learned Single Judges. 13.0. It is pertinent to refer the following decisions rendered by the other High Courts in respect of the issue involved in this matter. 13.1. A Division Bench of the Andhra https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/24 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8479 of 2022 Pradesh High Court in V. Venkateswarlu v. State of A.P, 1987 Cri.L.J 1621, has held as here under:
“10. The High Court, while exercising its Revisional jurisdiction suo motu or in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482, can direct the sentences to run concurrently as provided under Section 427, Cr.P.C, even though the convictions and sentences that have been passed by the Additional Sessions Judges of different Sessions Divisions have become final.” 13.2. A Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shersingh v. State of M.P, 1989 Cri.LJ 632 [1] has held as here under:
“Inherent powers of the High Court can be invoked under Section 482 even if the Trial Court or the appellate or Revisional Court has not exercised its discretion under Section 427(1) of the Code in directing running of previous and subsequent sentences concurrently. The inherent powers of the High Court is not in any way fettered by the provisions of Section 427(1) and it can be invoked at any stage even if there is no such order passed under Section 427(1) by the Trial Court or Appellate or Revisional Court and even though the conviction has become final.” 13.3. The view taken by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court are in line with the view taken by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Madhan Lal, 2009 (5) SCC 238. As a matter of fact, as already pointed out, the learned Single Judge of this Court in A. Paulraj v. Maria Chellammal, 2011 (4) MLJ (Crl.) 798, also referred the decision of the Hon'ble Apex https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/24 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8479 of 2022 Court in M.R Kudva v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2007 (2) SCC 772 (Two-Judge Bench) and preferred to place reliance on the decision rendered by the Larger Bench consisting of Three Judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
14.0. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
14.1. In Union of India v. K.S Subramanian, AIR 1976 SC 2433, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: ‘The proper course for a High Court is to try to find out and follow the opinions expressed by Larger Benches of the Supreme Court in preference to those expressed by smaller Benches of the Court. That is the practice followed by the Supreme Court itself. The practice has not crystallized into a rule of law declared by the Supreme Court. If however, the High Court is of the opinion that the views expressed by Larger Benches of the Supreme Court are not applicable to the facts of the case it should say so giving reasons supporting its point of view.” 14.2 The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Ram Chandra, AIR 1976 SC 2547, has held as follows:
“Constitutional position as regards the powers of Court to go behind the orders of termination to find out motive of Government is clear. Even in cases where a High Court finds any conflict between the views expressed by larger and smaller Benches of this Court, it cannot be disregard or skirt the views expressed by the Larger Benches. The proper course for a High Court in such a case is to try to find out and follow the opinion expressed by Larger Benches of the Supreme Court in preference to those expressed by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/24 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8479 of 2022 smaller benches of the Court which practice, hardened as it has into a rule of law, is followed by the Supreme Court itself.” The above decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court make it crystal clear that the High Court has to follow the opinion expressed by the Larger Benches of the Hon'ble Apex Court in preference to those expressed by smaller Benches.
15. As far as the issue involved in this matter, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge in A. Paulraj v.
Maria Chellammal, 2011 (4) MLJ (Crl.) 798, has rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Larger Bench consisting of Three Judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Madhan Lal, 2009 (5) SCC 238, which is binding on this Court and taken a correct view.
16. It is to be stated that invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C in order to grant the relief under Section 427, Cr.P.C would not amount to altering, varying or modifying the findings of the Trial Court or Appellate Court. On the other hand, it is always open to this Court to exercise power under Section 482, Cr.P.C to secure the ends of justice. It is needless to say that this Court has to exercise its judicial discretion for invoking the power under Section 482, Cr.P.C for granting the relief under Section 427, Cr.P.C, on the basis of the facts and circumstances and gravity of the charge levelled against the Accused in each case.
17. In the result, we are answering the reference to the effect that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C, can very well be extended to issue a direction ordering the sentence imposed in a latter case on conviction to run concurrently https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/24 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8479 of 2022 with the sentence imposed in a former case as provided under Section 427, Cr.P.C.”
6. In the case, on hand, it is seen that the petitioner was involved in two cases only viz., C.C.No.22 of 2017 and C.C.No.23 of 2017. The petitioner is not an habitual offender and he did not commit any other offences, similar to those cases. Further it is also seen that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathiyamangalam sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years for both sentences viz., offences under Sections 454 and 380 of IPC to run concurrently. The High Court of Bombay(Nagpur Bench) held as follows:
PRECEDENTS:
13. We are fortified in this view as per the judgment in case of Abidkhan @ Salman Mukhtar Khan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in MANU/MH/0954/2013 : 2014 ALL Mr. (Cri.) 1719 (in which Justice Shukre authored the Judgment). Three cases were tried and convicted by one Court. (Metropolitan Magistrate), whereas in case before us, two different Magistrate Courts (from two places) tried and convicted these petitioners. This is the oly distinguishable factor. Otherwise, the observation made therein are perfectly applicable to the case before us.
14. We are also fortified in taking this view on the basis of judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court. In case of Benson vs. State of Kerala, reported in MANU/SC/1177/2016 : (2016) 10 SCC 307, Hon'ble Supreme converted the sentence into concurrent sentences. There were almost 11 cases.
APPROACH OF TRIAL COURT:
15. It is true that Bhandara Court and Tumsar may or may not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/24 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8479 of 2022 be aware of cases pending in two different Courts. But, it is certain that both these Courts are fully aware of cases dealt with by them.
Can we say that these two courts are unaware about legal provisions contained in Section 427 of Cr.P.C. These two Courts have not given them the benefit of concurrent theory of sentences. These two Courts are fully aware about the provisions of Probatiion of Offenders Act and they have denied the benefit to the petitioners.
16. Ultimately, the Judicial Officers dealing with the case is also having human element on it. So, while convicting the petitioners, they must be having “repetitive tendency of these petitioners while committing these offences” in their mind. They were fully justified in denying them benefits of concurrent theory. The theory of deterrence must have weighed with their mind. But what we feel is that the trial Courts are unaware of these provisions of law. We say so because there is no discussion on this issue. Judge may consciously deny benefit. But, it must be reflected from the judgment. In case of Abidkhan, there was direction to place the matter before Registrar General. In order to sensitize the judges in the State of Maharastra, we feel some more needs to be done. Hence, we intend to direct the Registrar (Judicial) to circulate this judgment amongst all Judges in State of Maharashtra. We hope the Judges of trial Court and the appellate Court will consider the provisions of Section 427 of Cr.P.C. while dealing with the issue of sentence. Ultimately, it is the discretion of the concerned Judge whether to grant him benefit or not. It depends upon facts of each case. But it should not happened that due to ignorance of this provisions of law, a rightful convict may be denied benefit of this provision of law.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19/24 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8479 of 2022
7.In view of the above said Judgments and the scope of Section 427 of Cr.P.C., the Division Bench of this Court after discussing the judgments elaborately, held that the provisions of Section 427 of Cr.P.C., while dealing the issue of sentence, ultimately, is a discretion of the concerned Judge whether to grant him benefit or not and it depends upon facts of each case. But it should not be happened that due to ignorance of this provisions of law, a rightful convict may be denied benefit of this provision of law. Even a bare perusal of Section 427 of Cr.P.C., makes it clear that when a person is already undergoing the sentence of imprisonment, is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to the imprisonment, but the imprisonment shall commence at the experience of imprisonment, to which, he has been previously sentenced, unless, the Court directed the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with such a previous sentence. However, Section 427 of Cr.P.C.has given absolute power to the learned Judges to exercise the discretion in an appropriate manner.
8.In the present case, all those convictions rendered as against the petitioner only in respect of Sections 457 and 388 IPC, and if the petitioner is allowed to suffer the punishment after experience of one sentence, it will take 51 years to complete. Now, the petitioner is aged 42 years, if added 51 years it https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20/24 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8479 of 2022 will come 97 years and he may not be possible to return his normal life. Hence, this Court is inclined to exercise the discretion power and extend the benefit of Section 427 of Cr.P.C., in favour of the petitioner.
9.Accordingly, the sentence imposed in the later case to run concurrently with the sentence imposed on the previous case as provided under Section 427 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is ordered that the sentence imposed on the petitioner in C.C.Nos.159, 159 and 164 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, C.C.Nos.257, 317, 320 and 321 of 2016, C.C.No.78 of 2017, C.C.Nos.191 and 396 of 2018 and C.C.Nos.357 and 358 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai, C.C.No.278 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tuticorin, C.C.Nos.141, 142 and 200 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Central Prison Campus, Madurai, C.C.Nos.291 and 349 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, C.C.No.80 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin, C.C.Nos.74, 75, 76, 77, 108, 109, 115 and 298 of 2017 and C.C.No.739 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai, shall run concurrently.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21/24 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8479 of 2022
10. In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.
Index : Yes/No 06.02.2024
Internet : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
Sji
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai.
3.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tuticorin.
4.The Judicial Magistrate, Central Prison Campus, Madurai.
5.The Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai.
6.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin.
7.The Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai.
8.The Sub Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Tallakulam Police Station, Madurai.
9.The Sub Inspector of Police, Koodal Pudhur Police Station, Madurai.
10.The Sub Inspector of Police, Central Police Station, Tuticorin.
11.The Sub Inspector of Police, K.Pudhur Police Station, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 22/24 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8479 of 2022
12.The Sub Inspector of Police, Subramaniyapuram Crime Branch Police Station, Madurai.
13.The Sub Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Tuticorin.
14.The Sub Inspector of Police, C-3, S.S. Colony Police Station, Madurai.
15.The Sub Inspector of Police, Karimedu Crime Branch Police Station, Madurai.
16.The Sub Inspector of Police, Thilagar Thidal Police Station, Madurai.
17.The Superintendent, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai.
18.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 23/24 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8479 of 2022 M.DHANDAPANI, J.
Sji Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8479 of 2022 06.02.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 24/24