In S.B. Criminal Misc. Appl. No.13/2023-DEL HC- Where accused is sentenced for several offences at one trial, Court may direct that sentences shall run concurrently, however, sentences shall run consecutively in absence of such direction: Delhi HC
Justice Farjand Ali  [25-05-2023]

Read Order:Sohanlal And Ors Vs. State Of Rajasthan 

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, May 29,2023:  Considering the fact that if the NDPS Act accused-appellants, aged 38 and 30 years, are sentenced to suffer a period of 24 years of imprisonment then there would be nothing left in the remainder of their lives as per common life expectancy to go back to, the Delhi High Court has allowed the application seeking concurrency of the sentences and ordered that both the substantive sentences awarded by the Trial Court i.e. the rigorous imprisonment of 14 years awarded u/s 8/15 of the NDPS Act and the rigorous imprisonment of 10 years awarded u/s 8/18 of NDPS Act, shall run concurrently. 

Referring to section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code which refers to the jurisdiction of Court to impose punishment when the accused is found guilty for two or more offences during a single trial, Justice Farjand Ali said, “Section 31 of Cr.P.C. empowers the trial court with the discretion to determine that sentences for two or more offences passed in one trial would run simultaneously or consequently, depending on the nature of the offences and any aggravating or mitigating factors that may be present. However, this discretion must be used while taking into account the type of offence committed and the facts & circumstances of the case.”

The factual background of this case was such that a truck was intercepted by the police and during search, a total of 38 plastic bags of poppy husk and 1 plastic polythene of opium were found in the truck. The total weight of the poppy husk was 1480 Kilograms kgs above the commercial quantity demarcated under the NDPS Act, thus, the accused persons were charged for offences under Section 8/15 and Section 8/18 of NDPS Act. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The Trial Court convicted the accused persons under Sections 8/15 and 8/18 of NDPS Act and sentenced them accordingly, however, there was no such direction from the Trial Court regarding the order of running of sentences, i.e. if they had to run concurrently or consecutively.

It was the petitioner’s case that the sentences awarded by the trial Court be altered and both the sentences be directed to run concurrently. The Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer made by the accused-appellants and submitted that in view of the quantity of the recovered contraband being above the commercial quantity specified in the statute, the trial Court had rightly not directed to run the sentences concurrently.

It was noticed by the Bench that even after a long period of incarceration, the jail authorities conveyed to the prisoner-appellant that he had served only 6 years of sentence for an offence under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act only and the 10 years’ sentence for the offence under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act would begin after completion of sentence for offence under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act which had perturbed the appellant.

Considering the fact that both the offences had arisen from a single transaction, the Bench opined, “Where an accused is convicted and sentenced for several offences at one trial, the Court may direct that the sentences shall run concurrently. In the absence of such direction by the Court, sentences shall run consecutively”.

The Bench further added that the basic rule is that the sentences must be directed to run concurrently if the accused is found guilty of two or more offences that are arising out of one and the same transaction and there are no special circumstances to do so.

Noting that the mandate under Section 31 of Cr.P.C. was not followed as the trial court did not mention the order in which the substantive sentences would be served by accused-appellants, the Bench highlighted the fact that the decision of the Trial Court had resulted into the appellants suffering total imprisonment of twenty four years instead of fourteen years as in the absence of any specific direction, the jail authorities had decided and intimated the appellants that their sentences would run consecutively which couldn’t be considered reasonable as merely because the Trial Court did not give any instructions regarding the order in which the sentences would run, it couldnot be said that the Court intended for the sentences to run consecutively.

“This court is of the considered opinion that unless there are special circumstances to pass an order regarding running of sentence consecutively; in routine, an order to run the sentence concurrently should be passed otherwise accused would suffer way harsher punishment then the legislature intended”, the Bench held.

It was further opined that the trial Court must specify in what order the sentences would be served by the accused-appellants and if the trial Court intends to direct consecutive running of sentences then it must specify the intent in writing in the order of sentence so as not to leave the liberty of an individual in the hands of a jailor.

Thus, ordering that both the substantive sentences awarded to the accused-appellants by the trial Court i.e. the rigorous imprisonment of 14 years awarded under Section 8/15 and the rigorous imprisonment of 10 years awarded under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act, shall run concurrently, the Bench held that the the total term of imprisonment shall not exceed 14 years.