Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.15 seconds)Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
R.N. Basu (For B. Parshottam Das Tandon) vs Emperor on 29 May, 1933
The discretion is not to be exercised arbitrarily but judicially. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for the exercise of the discretion. Every case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. But speaking generally, and without laying down any rigid rule, it will be a sound exercise of the discretion, under Section 397 (1) Cr. P. C., if the sentence imposed on an offender, at a subsequent trial, who is already undergoing imprisonment for a previous conviction, is made consecutive to the previous sentence, unless there be some special reasons for making the sentence concurrent, e.g. the previous and the subsequent offences are akin or ate intimately connected, vide N.N. Burjorjee v. Emperor, AIR 1935 Rang 456. In the present case, Sangat Ram had been previously convicted for an offence, under Section 436 I.P.C., for setting fire to a building which had resulted in burning many houses and caused damage to the tune of rupees six lacs. He was undergoing a sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment for the aforesaid offence when he was tried, convicted and sentenced, under Section 408 I.P.C. The two offences, under Section 436 I.P.C. and Section 408 I.P.C., were not akin or intimately connected. The ends of justice required that the sentence, imposed', upon Sangat Ram, under Section 408 I. P. C. should have been made to commence after the expiry of the sentence, imposed upon him, under Section 436 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate has not given any reasons, whatsoever, for making the sentence concurrent. In my opinion, the learned Magistrate did not exercise his discretion judicially in directing that the sentence, under Section 408 I. P. C., should commence from the date of his order.
Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Amending Act, 1897
1