Legal Provisions of Section 427 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), India.
Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence:
Generally, a sentence commences from the time it is passed. But where a person is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment and during this period he is subsequently sentenced for a term of imprisonment for some other offence, then in that case the sentence passed subsequently shall follow after the expiration of the first sentence.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
However, sub-section (1) of this section confers discretionary power on the Court to direct that the subsequent sentence will run concurrently with the previous sentence. The discretion to order the two sentences to run concurrently may be exercised by the appellate as well as the revisional Court.
It must be pointed out that imprisonment in default of payment of fine can be concurrent with a substantive sentence of imprisonment. Whether both of these sentences are passed in the same proceeding or in different cases at different times.
Image Source : luna.edu
Thus where an accused is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine and a substantive sentence of imprisonment is passed subsequently in a different case, the subsequent sentence cannot run concurrently and it will commence only after the first sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine expires.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The normal rule is that where several sentences are passed, such sentences should run consecutively, that is, one after the other, unless the Court directs that they will run concurrently. The sentence commences from the very moment it is passed in the earlier case though the accused may be on bail at the time when subsequent sentence was passed.
In a case where the second sentence imposed on the accused was to commence on the expiration of the first sentence, and the first sentence was set aside while the accused was undergoing it, then in such a situation, the second sentence would commence from the date of conviction, and the period of imprisonment already undergone in respect of the first sentence would be deemed to have been in respect of the second sentence.
The Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh held that where a convict undergoing life imprisonment in a murder case, commits another murder while in jail, the life imprisonment in respect of second murder will not run concurrently.
Though this ruling of the Apex Court was contrary to the provision in Section 427 (2) of the Code, but perhaps what the Court really meant was that in the event of any remission or commutation in respect of the first sentence, the second sentence should commence forthwith.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The High Court of Bombay, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Mohd Akhtar Hussain v. Asstt. Collector, refused to order the sentences to run concurrently, which were awarded to the accused in separate offences in different transactions.
In M.R. Kudva v. State of Andhra Pradesh the appellant was awarded two separate conviction and separate sentences for two distinct and different offences. His appeal to High Court and special leave petitions were also dismissed. The provision of Section 427, Cr. P.C. was neither invoked in original cases nor in appeals.
Thereafter, application was filed in High Court under Sections 482 and 427 praying that the sentences imposed in both the cases be directed to run concurrently, which was not maintainable. Held that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 was not an appropriate remedy when neither the trial Court nor the High Court has exercised jurisdiction under Section 427, Cr. P.C. while passing judgments. The appeals for running of sentences imposed in two cases to run concurrently were, therefore not maintainable.