Today, I will talk about the case of Mohd. Zahid v. State through NCB, Criminal Appeal No. 1457 of 2021, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), that deals with the sentencing of an offender who has already been sentenced for another offence.
Today, I will talk about the case of Mohd. Zahid v. State through NCB, Criminal Appeal No. 1457 of 2021, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), that deals with the sentencing of an offender who has already been sentenced for another offence.
To know more about it, please visit https://www.desikanoon.co.in/2021/12/consecutive-sentences-concurrent.html
Telegram: https://t.me/Legal_Talks_by_DesiKanoon
YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMmVCFV7-Kfo_6S42kPhz2w
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-talks-by-desikanoon/id1510617120
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3KdnziPc4I73VfEcFJa59X?si=vYgrOEraQD-NjcoXA2a7Lg&dl_branch=1&nd=1
Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS84ZTZTcGREcw?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuz4ifzpLxAhVklGMGHb4HAdwQ9sEGegQIARAD
Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/4b89fb71-1836-414e-86f6-1116324dd7bc/Legal-Talks-by-Desikanoon
Please subscribe and follow us on YouTube, Instagram, iTunes, Twitter, LinkedIn, Discord, Telegram and Facebook.
Credits:
Music by Wataboi from Pixabay
Thank you for listening!
Hi everyone.
I am Suyash and today, I will talk about the case of Mohd. Zahid v. State through NCB, Criminal Appeal No. 1457 of 2021, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), that deals with the sentencing of an offender who has already been sentenced for another offence.
Before adverting any further, it is important to understand that the Court discussed the notions of consecutive sentence and concurrent sentence in the present case. Briefly speaking, ‘consecutive sentences’ means “two or more sentences of jail time to be served in sequence” whereas ‘concurrent sentence’ means “two or more sentences of jail time to be served simultaneously.”
In this case, the Court answered the following question: -
Whether the sentences imposed against an accused by two different courts in two different trials should run concurrently or consecutively?
In order to answer this question, let us understand S. 427 (1) of CrPC that provides that: -
“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.”
Thus, unless otherwise specified, the subsequent sentence runs consecutively and not concurrently. By consecutive sentence, it is meant that the subsequent sentence shall commence after the expiration of the first sentence. And concurrent sentence generally means that the sentences will go on simultaneously or in a parallel manner.
Further, S. 427 (2) provides that: -
“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.”
Thus, S. 427 (2) provides an exception to s. 427 (1) that where the first sentence is life imprisonment, the subsequent sentence would run concurrently with the life imprisonment.
It is also pertinent to note that what S. 427 is referring to is sentencing by two different courts in two different trials that involve different cause of action. In this regard, “the general rule is that where there are different transactions, different crime numbers and cases have been decided by the different judgments, concurrent sentence cannot be awarded under Section 427 of Cr.PC.”
In the present case, the Court also outlined that “under Section 427 (1) of Cr.PC the court has the power and discretion to issue a direction that all the subsequent sentences run concurrently with the previous sentence.” But such “discretion has to be exercised judiciously depending upon the nature of the offence or the offences committed and the facts in situation.” What is important is that there ought to be a specific direction by the court that the subsequent sentence is to run concurrently with the previous sentence.
Therefore, in conclusion, following important points emerge: -
a. “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.”
b. “Ordinarily the subsequent sentence would commence at the expiration of the first term of imprisonment unless the court directs the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence.”
c. Where the first sentence is life imprisonment, the subsequent sentence would run concurrently with the life imprisonment.
d. Unless otherwise specified, the subsequent sentence runs consecutively and not concurrently.
e. Concurrent sentences cannot be awarded where the cause of action or the transactions are different in different cases.
f. The Court does have the discretion to direct that the subsequent sentences shall concurrently.
g. But such discretion is to be exercised judiciously and there must be a specific direction to such effect.
Therefore, I hope that the mandate of S. 427 of CrPC and the difference between concurrent and consecutive sentences is clear by now.
Hence, I hope you enjoyed listening to the show.
Thank you for listening.
Please do not forget to like, subscribe or comment.
See you next time, till then stay tuned.