Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(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.”

11. We may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti v. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad and Another (1988) 4 SCC 183, wherein the Supreme Court recognised the basic rule of convictions arising out of a single transaction justifying concurrent running of the sentences. In Mohd. Akhtar Hussain, it was held as under:-

“10. The basic rule of thumb over the years has 7been 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.

……….

12. The submission, in our opinion, appears to be misconceived. The material produced by the State unmistakably indicates that the two offences for which the appellant was prosecuted are quite distinct and different. The case under the Customs Act may, to some extent, overlap the case under the Gold (Control) Act, but it is evidently on different transactions. The complaint under the Gold (Control) Act relates to possession of 7000 tolas of primary gold prohibited under Section 8 of the said Act. The complaint under the Customs Act is with regard to smuggling of gold worth Rs 12.5 crores and export of silver worth Rs 11.5 crores. On these facts, the courts are not unjustified in directing that the sentences should be consecutive and not concurrent.”

14. Following the decision in V.K. Bansal, in Benson v. State of Kerala (2016) 10 SCC 307, the Supreme Court directed that the sentences imposed in each of the cases shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed in Crime No.8 which was then currently operative. However, the Court held that the benefit of “concurrent running of sentences” is granted only with respect of substantive sentences; but the sentences of fine and default sentences shall not be affected by the direction. The Supreme Court observed that the provisions of Section 427 Crl.P.C. do not permit a direction for the concurrent running of the default sentence for non-payment of fine.

15. Further, in the case of Anil Kumar v. State of Punjab (2017) 5 SCC 53, it was held by this court that “in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 427, 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. Only in appropriate cases, considering the facts of the case, the court can make the sentence run concurrently with an earlier sentence imposed. The investiture of such discretion, presupposes that such discretion be exercised by the court on sound judicial principles and not in a mechanical manner. Whether or not the discretion is to be exercised in directing sentences to run concurrently would depend upon the nature of the offence/offences and the facts and circumstances of each case.”