RAMAKANTA DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application for exercise of power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'Code') prayer is for a direction that sentences awarded in two different cases, i.e., S. T. 5/23 of 1988 and S. T. No. 2/121 of 1938 -87 are to run concurrently,

(2.) UNDISPUTED facts situation is as follows : In the first case referred to above petitioner was found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine years by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balasore for having committed an offence punishable Under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Cade. 1860 (in short, 'IPC'). The matter came before this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1990. Though the appeal was dismissed, sentence was modified by reducing it from nine years to seven years. In the second case, petitioner was found guilty of having committed an offence punishable Under Section 395, IPC, and was awarded a sentence of seven years by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore. The matter was carried in appeal before this Court in Jail Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 1991. By judgment dated 22 -4 -1994 the appeal was dismissed, but there was modification of sentence from seven years to five years. The petitioner's case is that he is in custody since 1987, and has already spent more than seven years as a convict and therefore, by exercise of inherent powers of this Court, the aforesaid two sentences may be directed to run concurrently.

(3.) THE general rule is that sentences to run from the time of their being passed and this section makes an exception in the case of persons already undergoing imprisonment i.e . subsequent sentence shall commence at the expiration of the previous sentence, unless the Court directs that it shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. This rule has no application if (an the transaction relating to the offence is not the same, or (b) if facts constituted to offences are quite different. Unless Court directs that such sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence the imprisonment shall commence at the expiration of sentence to which offender has been previously sentenced. Sub -section (1) of Section 427 contemplates a sentence anterior in time to tha one which a person is undergoing, and also a subsequent sentence on a subsequent conviction. A concurrent sentence carries the inbuilt conception of the prisoner undergoing the sentences in connection with two different punishments imposed in two different casas simultaneously or concurrently at the same time. Law has resorted to a fiction and has treated the sentence being undergone by the prisoner as being undergone for both the offences simultaneously or concurrently. The basic rule of thumb over the years has been the so -called single transaction rule for concurrent sentences. If a given transaction constituted 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. No single consideration can definitely determine the proper sentence. In arriving at an appropriate sentence, the Court must consider and sometimes reject many factors. In consecutive sentences, in particular, the Court cannot afford to be blind to imprisonment which the accused is already undergoing Similar view was expressed by aoex Court in Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti v. Asst, Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad and Ors. : AIR 1988 SC 2143. The Court must apply its mind to the facts and circumst - ances and should not make it a meaningless exercise, missing nuances ot the case. The Court in exercise of power Under Section 482 can direct sentence to run concurrently. Such an order can be passed to secure ends of justice. But the power should not be used in a routine manner.