No Concurrency Of Sentence When Conviction Is For Different Crimes, Without Specific Direction: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court clarified that, except in situations where the Court specifically directs, the sentences are to run consecutively.
The Kerala High Court has held that there is no room for concurrency of sentence when the convictions are for different crimes unless the Courts specifically direct it.
The Petitioner's grievance was that despite the Magistrate being informed of his previous conviction in an NDPS case, Section 427 of the CrPC, which allows sentences to run concurrently, was not invoked. The Court clarified that, except in situations where the Court specifically directs, the sentences are to run consecutively.
A Single Bench of Justice C Jayachandran explained, “That apart, this Court also notice that the offences in question has no semblance of connection with each other. Both crimes are two different, independent instances. The previous conviction was with respect to the offences under Sections 29 and 21(c) of the N.D.P.S Act. There, the petitioner/accused was convicted by a Sessions Court at Delhi; whereas, the instant crime is with respect to the various offences under the Penal Code, as also, under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, wherein the conviction has been entered into by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mavelikkara.”
Advocate MR Sarin represented the Petitioner, while Senior Public Prosecutor CN Prabhakaran appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner was convicted for offenses under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 324, 506(ii), and 109 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act. He had previously been convicted in a separate case by the Special Judge, receiving a sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh.
The Petitioner argued that the Magistrate should have applied Section 427 of the CrPC suo moto and that failure to do so should not impact his rights.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court explained that the exception under Section 427 of the CrPC is contained in a situation where the Court, which awards the subsequent conviction, directs that the subsequent sentence will run concurrently with the previous sentence.
“Except in such situation where there is a specific direction by the Court, the sentences are to run consecutively. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that no such direction was granted by the subsequent Court, which convicted the petitioner/accused, despite the factum of his previous conviction being brought to the notice,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “The contention that the learned Magistrate should have been suo moto invoked Section 427, is far-fetched and not liable to be recognised in law. There arises no occasion to apply the maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit'. This Court cannot perceive any mistake, whatsoever, on the part of the Court, so as to give solace to the petitioner.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: B. Ajai v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:17260)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates M.R.Sarin, M.R.Sasith, P.Santhoshkumar (Karumkulam), Parvathi Krishna, Anjana Suresh., E Riya Kochumman, Mahalekshmy P.S, Sooraj S, Lekshmi S.R, Saumya. P.S, Aji S., Anaswara K.P., Radhikakrishna, Sithara Hamza Kizhakoot, Reethu Jacob, Sunil Joseph, M.S.Thomas, Karuna Sankar, Lidhiya George, Anju Thomas. M, Nanma. B.B and Nabil Khader
Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor C.N. Prabhakaran; Central Government Counsel K.S.Prenjith Kumar; ASGI A.R.L.Sundaresan
