Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 546 (HP)

Prince @Vicky v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-03-28

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. Petitioner-Prince @Vicky has filed the present petition, under Section 482 read with Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’), with a prayer to order the concurrent running of sentences, awarded to him, in cases, FIR No.382/2016 dated 01.12.2016, registered under Section 457, 380 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), with Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., and FIR No.385/2016 dated 04.12.2016, registered under Sections 457 and 511 of IPC, with Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. 2. According to the petitioner, he has been convicted by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), in relation to FIR No.382/16 (supra) and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 457 of IPC. He has further been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 380 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.03.2023, copy whereof has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. 3. It has been averred in the petition that at present, the petitioner is undergoing sentence. According to him, during his custody, he has been convicted in relation to FIR No.385/2016 (supra), by the learned trial Court, and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 457 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days. He has further been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 511 of IPC. He has further been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 511 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 05 days, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.10.2023, copy whereof has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. 4. According to the petitioner, both the judgments of conviction and orders of sentence, as referred to above, have been announced, on the basis of the confession, made by the petitioner, before the learned trial Court. 5. As per the petitioner, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed in case FIR No.385/2016, shall commence after expiry of the earlier judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed in case FIR No.382/2016 (supra). 6. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, by exercising the power, under Section 427 of CrPC, regarding running of sentences, awarded to the petitioner, by the learned trial Court, concurrently. 7. Custody certificate, dated 27.05.2024, issued by the Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan, H.P., has also been annexed with the petition, which is Annexure P-3. Relevant portion of the said certificate is reproduced, as under:- “Other Pending Execution :- 1. In Case FIR No.385/2016, Case No. 146/2017, U/s 457,511 IPC, PS Paonta Sahib, 01 Years SI and Fine Rs. 1500/-, I/D 15 days SI, awarded by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P on 20/10/2023. This Sentence shall run after expiry of previous sentence. 2. In case FIR No.312/2017 dated 27/06/2017, U/s 379 IPC, P.S Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmaur, H.P, S.I. for 06 months and fine Rs. 4000/-, I.D. SI for 07 days, awarded by the Ld. Addl. C.J.M Court No.i, Paonta Sahib on 16/11/2022. The sentence has been executed but the sentence in default of fine is kept in abeyance. 3. In case FIR No.187/2022 dated 30/08/2022, U/s 379,201,120-B IPC, P.S Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmaur, H.P, S.I. for 09 months and fine Rs. 4000/-, I.D. SI for 07 days, awarded by the Ld.Addl. C.J.M Court No.1 Paonta Sahib on 21/01/2023. The sentence has been executed but the sentence in default of fine is kept in abeyance. 4. 3. In case FIR No.187/2022 dated 30/08/2022, U/s 379,201,120-B IPC, P.S Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmaur, H.P, S.I. for 09 months and fine Rs. 4000/-, I.D. SI for 07 days, awarded by the Ld.Addl. C.J.M Court No.1 Paonta Sahib on 21/01/2023. The sentence has been executed but the sentence in default of fine is kept in abeyance. 4. In case FIR No.405/2022, U/s 379 IPC, P.S Haridwar, U.K, S.I. for 06 months and fine Rs. 2000/-, I.D. SI for 15 days, awarded by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate-III cum-Addl. Civil Magistrate Haridwar, U.K on 18/03/2023. The sentence has been executed but the sentence in default of fine is kept in abeyance. This certificate is being issued to convict Prince @ Vicky S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar on his own request for the purpose of submission before the Hon'ble High Court of H.P, through his counsel.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.K. Bansal versus State of Haryana & Another, (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases, 211, has held that the powers, under Section 427(1) CrPC, should be exercised judiciously and not mechanically. Relevant paragraph 16 is reproduced, as under:- “16. In conclusion, we may say that the legal position favours exercise of discretion to the benefit of the prisoner in cases where the prosecution is based on a single transaction no matter different complaints in relation thereto may have been filed as is the position in cases involving dishonour of cheques issued by the borrower towards repayment of a loan to the creditor.” 9. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar versus State of Punjab, (2017) 5 Supreme Court Case, 53, has elaborately discussed the provisions of Section 427 CrPC. Relevant paragraphs 4 to 7 are reproduced, as under:- “4. The power conferred on the Court under Section 427 Cr.P.C. to order concurrent sentence is discretionary. Section 427 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “S.427. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar versus State of Punjab, (2017) 5 Supreme Court Case, 53, has elaborately discussed the provisions of Section 427 CrPC. Relevant paragraphs 4 to 7 are reproduced, as under:- “4. The power conferred on the Court under Section 427 Cr.P.C. to order concurrent sentence is discretionary. Section 427 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “S.427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence.- (1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence: Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under Section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately. (2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.” 5. In terms of sub-section (1) of Section 427, if a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such subsequent term of imprisonment would normally commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he was previously sentenced. Only in appropriate cases, considering the facts of the case, the court can make the sentence run concurrently with an earlier sentence imposed. The investiture of such discretion, presupposes that such discretion be exercised by the Court on sound judicial principles and not in a mechanical manner. Whether or not the discretion is to be exercised in directing sentences to run concurrently would depend upon the nature of the offence/offences and the facts and circumstances of each case. 6. In V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana and Anr. Whether or not the discretion is to be exercised in directing sentences to run concurrently would depend upon the nature of the offence/offences and the facts and circumstances of each case. 6. In V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana and Anr. (2013) 7 SCC 211 , it was held by this Court as under: “It is manifest from Section 427 (1) that the Court has the power and the discretion to issue a direction but in the very nature of the power so conferred upon the Court the discretionary power shall have to be exercised along the judicial lines and not in a mechanical, wooden or pedantic manner. It is difficult to lay down any straitjacket approach in the matter of exercise of such discretion by the courts. There is no cut and dried formula for the Court to follow in the matter of issue or refusal of a direction within the contemplation of Section 427(1). Whether or not a direction ought to be issued in a given case would depend upon the nature of the offence or offences committed, and the fact situation in which the question of concurrent running of the sentences arises.” This Court then went on to club various crimes in respect of which sentences were imposed upon the appellant therein in three groups. 7. After referring to V.K. Bansal’s case, in Benson v. State of Kerala (2016) 10 SCC 307 : 2016 (9) SCALE 670 , this Court directed the substantive sentences imposed on the appellant Benson to run concurrently. The appellant therein was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 379 and Section 414 read with Section 34 IPC in at least eleven cases. By a separate judgment, the appellant was convicted and sentenced in each of the aforesaid cases and total length of sentences in aggregate was around nineteen years.” 10. The petitioner is a young man of 35 years and considering the fact that the sentences, in both the cases, were inflicted, on the basis of the confession, made by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if the substantive sentence, in case FIR No.385/2016 dated 04.12.2016, registered under Sections 457 and 511 of IPC, with Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., in which, he has been convicted and sentenced, vide judgment dated 20.10.2023, is ordered to be run concurrently. 11. 11. It is further clarified that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vicky @ Vikas versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2020 (3) SCALE 40 , the benefit of the ‘concurrent running of sentences’ is granted to the petitioner, with regard to the substantive sentence and not the sentence, which has been inflicted, upon him, in default of payment of fine. 12. With these observations, the petition stands allowed. 13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.