Holding

Under Section 427 CrPC the court may, in appropriate cases, order concurrent sentences, and in the present case the substantive imprisonment terms were ordered to run concurrently.

Summary

Anil Kumar was first convicted under Section 22 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1 lakh and a default two‑year term. He was later convicted under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and sentenced to one year' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000. He applied to the High Court for the two imprisonment terms to run concurrently under Section 427 of the CrPC, but the application was rejected. The Supreme Court held that Section 427 confers discretionary power to order concurrent sentences and, after examining the nature of the offences and the facts, directed that the substantive imprisonment terms run concurrently, while retaining the fines and default sentences, which will run consecutively if the fines remain unpaid. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the court may exercise its discretion under Section 427 CrPC to order concurrent sentences for convictions under different statutes (NDPS Act and Drugs & Cosmetics Act).
What principles govern the exercise of discretion in directing concurrent sentences.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 427
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940s. 27(b)(ii), s. 28
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s. 22

Subjects

Section 427concurrent sentencesdiscretionary powerNDPS ActDrugs and Cosmetics Actcriminal sentencingfinedefault sentence

Judgment

[2017] 1 S.C.R. 418

. A ANIL KUMAR
v.
. STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 77 of20 17)
B 'JANUARY 17,2017
[DIPAK MISRA AND R. BANUMATID, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.427- Exercise ofpower .
under, scope - In ternls of sub-section (1) of s.427. if a person
c 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 vf the
imprisonment to which he was previously sei1tenced- Only in
appropriate cases, the court can make the sentence run concurrently
with an earlier :Jentence imposed- The investiture ofsuch discretion,
D · presupposes that such d;scretion be exercised by the Court o~ sound
judicial principles and not in a mechankal 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 - In the instant case.
the appellant was e"r/ier convicted u/s.22 NDPS Act and
E
subsequemly convicted ul s.27{b){ii) and s.28 of the Drugs and
Cosmetks Act, 1940-111 view of nature of the offences for which
the appellant was convicted and the facts and circumstances of the
case, the sentence imposed on the appellant in the two offences to
nm concurrently- However. the fine amount and the default sentence
F or sentences are maimained - If the fine amount is not paid, the
default sentence will run consecutively and not concurre.ntly -
Appeal allowed.
V. K. Bansal v. State of Haryana and Am: (2013) 7 SCC
211 : (20131 7 SCR 617; Benson v. Sta_te of Kerala
G (2016) 10 SCC 307- relied on.
Case Law Reference
i2Gl3) 7 SCR 617 relied on Para6
(2016) 10 sec 307 relied on Para7
H
' 418
~------ - ..._,____ - ·-·--------.....
ANIL KUMAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB 419

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal A
No. 77 of2017.
• From the Order dated 12.07.2016 by the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Ch~digarh in CRM No. 19868 of20 16 in CRR No. 308
of2016.
Aman Preet Singh Rahi. Raghav Cbadl1, A. Venayngam Balan, B
Advs. for the AppeiJant.
Jayant K. Sud, Ajay P. Tushir, Umang Singh, Jagjit Singh Chhabra,
Advs. for t11e Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c
R. BANUMATIU, J. I. This appeal arises out of the order dated
• 12.07.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in CRM No.19868 of20 16 in CRR No.308 of20 16, whereby
the application filed by the appellant seeking dire<:tion to treat sentence
imposed on him in Complaint No.638 dated 24.08.2009 and that in FIR D
No.37 dated 19.04.2009 to run concurrently, was declined.
2. Brief facts are as follows. By judgment dated 23.07.2014 in
FIR No.37 dated 19.04.2009 PS Longowal. the appellant was convicted
under Section 22 ofNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (NDPS Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for E
ten years and pay fine of rupee one Jakh and in default to undergo
~ imprisonment for two years. By the judgment dated 25.08.2014, in the
Complaint No.638 dated 24.08.2009, the appellant wns convicted under
Section 27(b)(ii)and Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and
pay fine of Rs.S,OOO/-(rupces five thousand). The appellant preferred F
appeal against the said conviction and the same was dismissed by the
Appellate Court. The revision preferred by the appeJ Iant before the High
Court was also dismissed by the judgment dated 24.05.2016 in CRR
No.JOS of2016. The appellant filed miscellaneous application, CRM
No.l9868 of 2016 seeking clarification of the order dated 24.05.2016 . a
and further direction to treat the sentences of the appellant as concurrent
in terms of Section 427 ( 1) and (2) Cr.P.C. TI1e said application was
dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order. ·
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
H
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2o 1111 s.c.R:

A .. '· 4. The pm\ter conferred on the Court under Section 427 Cr.P.C. . .
to ord~r concurrent sentence is discretionary. Section 427 Cr.P.C. reads ·~
'
as under:-
"S.427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another
offence.-( t) When a person already undergoing a sentence of
B ·imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment ·
or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shalt
commerce at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he lws been · I

previously' sente.nced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent
sentenct shall run concurrently with such previous sentence: ·
c 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
,
.c,

f
I

'
for an offence committed prior to the inaking of such order, the latter
sentenc;e shall commence immediately.
I
I

D (~)When :1 person nlrcHdy unrlergoing a sentence of imprisonment
for li fc is sentenced em a su bsequcn t conviction to imprisonment for a
term ·or imprisonment for life. the subscqurnt sentence shaU run
concurrently wilh such previous sentence.:'
' · .5. In knns of sul,-scction ( l) of Section 42 7, if a person already
E undergoing a s~ntcnce of imprisonment is sentenced on a subse~ucnt
conviction to imprisonm~nt, S11ch subseq11cnt tcm1 of imprisonment would
normally conuncnc~c at t]u:! cxp iration of the i mprbonmcnt to which he
was previously scntc;:ced. Only in appropriate cnscs, considering the
facts of the case, the court can •mtke the sentence run concurrently
with nn cnrlicr sentence impose 1 Tl1t! investiture of such discretion,
F
~re~u_rpos~s t.hat such discretion be exercised by the Court on sound
J~dlcwl pnnc1pl\!s nnJ not in u mc~hanicai mann"'·r. \Vh~ther or nJt the
diSCretion is tu OC CXCr'Ciscd in directing SCJllcm:~s tO fUll COnC'UiTLJltly
\\:ould depend upon the nature of the offcncclt'n~n~es and th~ fads and
Clrcumsranccs of cnch case.
G
. : 6· ln V.K. Bu11.mll'. Stflle of /Iarymw ci."HI A nr. (20 1.3) 7 sCC
211, It was he1u by this Court as under; . . . : ..
"~tis m.an ifest. from Section 427 ( 1) that the Court hns the power ond the
discretion to tssuc n direction but in the vt:ry nature of the power so
conferred upon the Court the discretionary power shall have to be
H
Sl.!PREMF COURT REPORTS [201711 S CR.

A 4. The power conferred on the Court under s~ction 427 Cr.P.C.
to order com·urrcut sentence is disactionllry. Section 427 Cr.P.C. reads
as under·-
''S.427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another
offence.-( I) When a person already 1mdergning a sentence of
B imprisonment is sen1cnccd on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment
or imprisonment for life, such Imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall
COilllllCI'CC at !he expiration of the imprisonment to whidt he has been
previously sentenced: unless the Cuur1 Jirccts that !he subsct1ucnt
sentence; shall run concurrently with such previous sentence:
c 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 com milled prior to the inaking of such order, the latter
sentence shall ~ommence immediately.

D (:') Whcu ~person nlrc~dy undergoing a sl.!ntcnce of imprisonment
for I it;: is sen1e-nced on a subseq!lent conv id ion tn imprisonment for a
term or i:npri-;onment for life. the subsequent sentence shaH run
concurrently with <;udt previ~1us sentence.:·
5. In h'rms ~)r sub-~c'-'tiou (I) of Sed ion 427, if a person already
E undergoing ;: •:;:nt\.'nce of imprisonmellf is sentenced on a subsequent
convictkm h.l iili[His~mmcnt, such subsequent term-of imprisonment would
normally commence .1! (he e>.pir~ttiou of the imprisonmenl to which he
was previously seut~~=·-~ed. Only in appropriate cnses, considering the
facts of th1.· case, th~ \:•mrt can •nakc the scnt~ncc run concurrently
with an c:-~rli ...~r scn~cncc impm;!: I. The investiture of such discretion,
F presupposes th~H sud1 Jbcrctit'll be exercised by the Court on sound
judicial principles Md not in a lll<'chanical manner. Whether or not the
discretion is to l>e exercised in direct iug 5cntcnccs to nm conl:u:; '.'ni!y
would depend upon the nature of the dlcncc/offcnccs ;md ih·~ t"nc~:, a;ld
circumstances of c;~ch o.:a-;~.
G 6. ln V.K. .Bttmu[J•. S!ttle of llt~rymm !INI Am; (20 iJ) i SCC
211. it was heid by this Cou11 as under:
··It is maoifcst from Section 427 ( l) that th<.· Court hns the power and the
di~(;retion to is~me a directil1tl but in th~ \'t)l')' nature of the power so
<.~ontcrrcd upon the Court tlw dl'icrclionary power shall have to be
H
ANIL KlJMAR v. STATE OF PUN.IAA [R. BANUMATHI . .1.1 4~i

exercised along the judicial lines and not in a mechanical, wooden or A
pedantic manner. It is difficult to lay down any straitjacket approach in
the rr.atter of exercise of such discretion by the courts. There is no cut
and dried formula for the Court to follow in the rna tier of issue or r~fusal
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
B
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 lo V.K.. Bausal's case, in Benson a•. Stute of c
Kerala (20 16) I 0 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 afores~id cases and tot3llength D
of sentences in aggregate was around nineteen years.
8. In the present case, the appellant was earlier convicted under
Section 22 NDPS Act and subsequently convicted under Sect ion 27(b)( ii)
and Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Considering the
nature of the offences for which the appellant was convicted and the E
facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct
that the sentences imposed on the appellant in FlR No.3 7 and Complaint
No.638 shall run concurrently. However, the fine amount and the default
sentence or sentences are maintained. Jfth~: fine amount is not paid, the
default sentence will run consecutively and not concurrently. f
9. The substantive sentences imposed on the appellant are ordered
to run concurrently and the appeal is thus allowed.
Devika Uujral Arpcal <lllowed.

G