CHELLAPPAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These matters have come up before us on reference made by two learned Single Judges of this Court. One of the reference orders states that a deadlock has been created by two varying decisions rendered by two learned Single Judges on the same subject matter. Consequently, these matters have been referred for solving the said deadlock.

(2.) Short facts necessary for the disposal of these matters are as follows. - Petitioners in Crl. MC 1144/1989, and Crl. MC 566/1993 were co -accused in a large number of cases. In majority of those cases, they were charged with offences punishable under Sec. 457, 380 or 392 read with Sec. 34, of the Penal Code. In one case, namely SC 32/1986 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda, the offences charged against them were under Sec. 376(g), 380, 392, 451, and 465 read with Sec. 34 of the Penal Code. Learned Sessions Judge convicted them in that case and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. That conviction and sentence were upheld by this Court.

(3.) In CC 150/1986, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kodungallur, petitioners above mentioned were charged with offences punishable under Sections 457, 461 and 392, read with Sec. 34, of the Penal Code, Learned Magistrate convicted them and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Sec. 457 Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000.00, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, under Sec. 392, of the Penal Code. Learned Magistrate while passing the sentence, directed the periods of the sentence imposed in the case to run consecutively and to be concurrent with the sentence imposed on them in CC 217/1986 on his file. In appeal therefrom, the Sessions Judge directed the sentences to run concurrently. Accused, above mentioned petitioners, approached this Court by filing Crl. RP Nos. 134/1988 and 233/1988 Challenging the conviction and sentence. This Court registered Crl. RC 102/1988 and issued notice to the petitioners to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced. Revision petitions filed by the accused and the Criminal Revision Case registered by this Court came up before a learned Single Judge of this Court. While disposing of the matters, the learned Judge observed:- "I make it clear that the sentence imposed on the accused in the different cases shall run consecutively". That decision is reported as Sukumaran Nair Vs. State of Karala, 1988(2) KLT 1018. Thereafter, without making any reference to the above decision, one of the accused, namely Suku alias Sukumaran, moved Crl. MC 1144/1989 praying that the sentences of imprisonment awarded in the several cases against him may be directed to run concurrently. The learned Single Judge be fore whom Crl. MC 1144/1989 camp up, took the view : "I do not think that it is either just or proper to let the petitioner undergo imprisonment for the entire period for which he had been sentenced in the several cases. In my view, it is in the fitness of things and in accordance with justice that this Court should order concurrence as prayed for by him". Accordingly, the learned Judge directed that the sentence awarded against the petitioner in all cases will run concurrently with the sentence awarded in SC32/1986 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda.