VIJAYAMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life, if subsequently sentenced to imprisonment for a term, would the subsequent sentence run concurrently or consecutively, in the absence of a specific direction in the judgment? The aforesaid question arises for resolution in this petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.').

(2.) Petitioner is a life convict and has been in prison for the last 13 years. In the meantime, he was convicted in two other cases, both for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') and was sentenced to imprisonment for a term. In one of the subsequent two cases, he was convicted for a prison offence as well. However, in the subsequent two judgments, there was no direction that the sentences would run concurrently with the earlier life sentence. Due to the absence of such a direction, petitioner is being denied the grant of ordinary leave from the prison, as the subsequent sentences are for the offences under the NDPS Act. If the sentences had run concurrently, petitioner would have been eligible for being considered for the grant of ordinary leave, while, if it runs consecutively until the sentence for the NDPS offence is undergone, he will not be so eligible. The question raised in the prefatory paragraph arises in the above circumstances.

(3.) Considering the importance of the question involved, this Court appointed Adv. Mitha Sudhindran as Amicus Curiae to assist the court.