In Cri Pet. No. 1236 of 2023- KAR HC- ‘Trial Court ought to have passed an order for running the sentences concurrently where the judgments were delivered by the same judge on the same day’: Karnataka High Court while granting relief under Section 427 CrPC
Justice K.Natarajan [18-05-2023]

Read Order: Shivanna v Megharaja

Simran Singh

New Delhi, May 25, 2023: The Karnataka High Court, while exercising it criminal jurisdiction, settled that the petitioner-accused was entitled for relief under Section 427 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) as he had already undergone one year punishment in two out of the three cases in which he was convicted.

In the matter at hand, the petitioner-accused prayed for directing the Trial Court to pass an order to run the sentences concurrently in respect of 3 criminal cases and to grant a set-off vis-a-vis the imprisonment already undergone by him. He was convicted for a year and sentenced to pay fine of INR 1,15,500 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 188, in default of which, he had to undergo imprisonment for 1 year vide judgment dated 19-04-2019. The petitioner-accused was said to be in jail for 5 months and was later in custody since 23-03-2022.

The Bench was of the view that the Trial Court ought to have passed an order for running the sentences concurrently where the judgments were delivered by the same judge on the same day. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled for relief under Section 427 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) as he had already undergone one year punishment in 2 out of the 3 cases. He was accordingly ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.

The Court while dealing with the prayer for punishment and sentences in respect of undergoing six months of imprisonment vis-a-vis the default clause, stated that the same could not be clubbed with the other 2 cases. Therefore, he had to undergo 6 months imprisonment from the date on which he had been sentenced to imprisonment, Therefore, it was observed that if he was in custody for 6 months in this case, the same would be ordered to run after completion of the sentences passed in the other two cases as per Section 427(1) of Cr.P.C.