JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY) 1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the present Appellant has preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 2023 in the present Appeal for suspension of sentence. While considering the said Application, it had come to the notice of this Court that the Appellant had already undergone sentence of more than 14 years and therefore the present Appeal has been taken up for final hearing. 2. The Appellant has preferred the present Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment and order dated 23.11.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 55 of 2013 whereby the Appellant came to be convicted for offence punishable under Section 120B read with Section 364A, read with Section 511, Section 120(B) read with Section 511, Section 25(1)(A)(B) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 120(B) read with Section 364A, read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 Years for offence punishable under Section 387 read with Section 511 of I.P.C. and Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 Years for the offence punishable under Section 25(1)(A)(B) of the Arms Act. 3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the present Appeal are such that one Pradeep Subhashchandra Mehta had lodged an FIR with the police authorities to the effect that between 1.5.2000 to 15.5.2000 he had received phone calls from Dubai asking him to make payment of ransom money. Allegedly, these phone calls were made by the present Appellant. On the basis of the said information, the offences punishable under Sections 364, 120B, 511, 387, 120B, 511 of the IPC and Sections 25(1)(A)(B) and Section 27 of the Arms Act came to be registered against the present Appellant and other co-accused. After the conclusion of investigation, the investigation agency filed charge sheet against all the accused. Thereafter, since the present Appellant was absconding, the trial qua him was separated. The learned Magistrate had committed the proceedings to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the other co-accused. After the conclusion of investigation, the investigation agency filed charge sheet against all the accused. Thereafter, since the present Appellant was absconding, the trial qua him was separated. The learned Magistrate had committed the proceedings to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the other co-accused. The other co-accused were tried by the learned Sessions Court vide Sessions Case No. 77 of 2001 and the maximum punishment imposed upon those co-accused was imprisonment for 10 years for offence punishable under Section 364A read with Section 120B and 511 of IPC. Thereafter the present Appellant having been apprehended, the proceedings qua him were committed by the learned Magistrate under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the trial was conducted against him vide Sessions Case No. 55 of 2013. The prosecution had adopted the evidence adduced by it for the other co-accused in the proceedings of Sessions Case No. 77 of 2001 in the trial of Sessions Case No.55 of 2013. Learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence adduced on record, was pleased to convict the present Appellant for the offence mentioned herein above and imposed punishment upon the Appellant as referred to herein above. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal. 4. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jal S. Unwala appearing with learned Advocate Mr. Vishal J. Dave for the Appellant. He submitted that he would be restricting the present Appeal only for the aspect of the sentence and that he would not address the Court on the aspect of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. Thus, he has restricted the present Appeal only qua the aspect of sentence imposed upon the Appellant. He submitted that the Appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 364(A) read with Section 511 and Section 387 read with Section 511 of IPC. Thus, the Appellant has been convicted for attempting to commit the offence punishable under Section 364(A) and Section 387 of IPC. As per the provisions of Section 511 of IPC, the punishment for such an attempt is imprisonment for a term which may extend to one half of the imprisonment for life or one half of the longest terms of the imprisonment provided for that offence. In the submission of learned Senior Advocate Mr. As per the provisions of Section 511 of IPC, the punishment for such an attempt is imprisonment for a term which may extend to one half of the imprisonment for life or one half of the longest terms of the imprisonment provided for that offence. In the submission of learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jal S. Unwala, the punishment for the offence punishable under Section 364A is life imprisonment. In view of the provisions of Section 57 of IPC, the life imprisonment is to be reckoned as equivallent to imprisonment for 20 years, and therefore, the punishment which could have been imposed upon the present Appellant for offence punishable under Section 364(A) read with Section 511 was of imprisonment for a period of 10 years. The Sessions Court has clearly overlooked this aspect while imposing the punishment upon the present Appellant. He further submitted that the offence punishable under Section 387 of IPC is made punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years. The Appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 387 read with Section 511 of IPC. Here also in view of the provision of Section 511 of IPC the sentence would be reduced to 3 ½ years. Since the learned Sessions Judge has ordered to run all the sentences concurrently, the Appellant has already undergone the maximum sentence which could have been imposed upon him. He further submitted that there was no reason for the learned Sessions Court to impose punishment of life imprisonment upon the present Appellant when the other co-accused had been sentenced with imprisonment for 10 years on the same facts and evidence. Thus, in the submission of the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jal S. Unwala, the learned Sessions Judge has erred in passing the impugned judgment and order in sentencing the present Appellant for life imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 364(A) read with Section 511 of IPC. He therefore submitted to allow the present Appeal. 5. The Appeal is opposed by learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval inter alia contending that the offence proved against the present Appellant is of very serious nature. There are other offences of similar nature registered against the present Appellant. The present Appellant is a known hardened criminal. He also submitted that the punishment prescribed for offence punishable under Section 364(A) is death or imprisonment for life. Ronak Raval inter alia contending that the offence proved against the present Appellant is of very serious nature. There are other offences of similar nature registered against the present Appellant. The present Appellant is a known hardened criminal. He also submitted that the punishment prescribed for offence punishable under Section 364(A) is death or imprisonment for life. From the evidence adduced on record it has been proved that it was the present Appellant who was making telephone calls to the first informant for ransom. Thus the role played by the present Appellant for commission of the offence in question is more serious than the role attributed to the other co-convicts. Therefore the learned Sessions Court has rightly imposed punishment of life imprisonment upon the present Appellant. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present Appeal. 6. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. 7. Since, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jal S. Unwala appearing for the Appellant has restricted the present Appeal only to the aspect of sentence, this Court does not think it necessary to re-appreciate the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution. 8. The learned Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment and order has convicted the present Appellant for offence punishable under Section 364(A) read with Section 120(B) read with Section 511 of IPC, Section 120(B) read with Section 387, read with Section 511 of IPC, Section 25(1)(A)(B) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and has imposed the punishment of life imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 364(A) read with Section 511 of IPC. Section 511 of IPC reads as under: “Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment.—Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with 1[imprisonment for life] or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with 2[imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence], or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.’ 9. The offence punishable under Section 364(A) is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Section 57 of IPC reads as under: “57. Fractions of terms of punishment – In calculating fractions of terms of punishment, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years.” 10. Having regard to the provisions of Section 511 and Section 57 of IPC, the maximum punishment which can be imposed upon the Appellant for offence punishable under Section 364(A) read with Section 511 of IPC would be imprisonment for 10 years. Similarly, the maximum punishment which can be imposed upon the Appellant for offence punishable under Section 387 read with Section 511 of IPC would be imprisonment for 3 ½ years. Upon perusal of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has lost sight of the provisions of Section 511 and Section 57 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge also appears to have lost sight of the fact that the other co-convicts were punished for imprisonment for 10 years on the very same set of facts and evidence for the offence punishable under Section 364(A) read with Section 511 IPC. It is also required to be noted at this stage that the offence punishable under Section 120(B) was also invoked against all the accused including the present Appellant. Under the circumstances, the role played by each individual for commission of offence would be of no significance while determining the sentence to be imposed upon them. The Sessions Court has not given any reasons for imposing sentence more stringent upon the Appellant than the sentence imposed upon the other co-convicts. 11. The jail record indicates that the Appellant has already undergone sentence of 14 years and 3 months. All the sentences imposed upon the Appellant by the Trial Court are to run concurrently. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, the Appellant has already undergone the maximum sentence which could have been imposed upon him in the present offence. Therefore, the Appellant is ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 12. With these observations the present Appeal is partly allowed. 13. In view of the order passed in Criminal Appeal, Criminal Misc. Application No. 2 of 2023 [for suspension of sentence] has become infructuous and the same is hereby disposed of.