MADURAI
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has come to the relief of a 60-year-old man by allowing his plea to undergo his sentences for committing theft at different places concurrently. Otherwise, he would have to spend at least 10 years in prison for the offences.
The court was hearing the petition filed by Sheik Madhar who was sentenced for house breaking and theft. On January 9, 2017, he broke open five optical shops one after the other and stole money, and five separate cases were registered against him.
He was sentenced to three years’ simple imprisonment by the trial court in Tiruchi and imposed a fine of ₹5,000 for each offence. When he appealed against the sentence, the Sessions Court modified and reduced the sentence to two years and reduced the fine to ₹100 in each case.
However, both the trial court and the appellate court did not pass any direction as to whether the sentences in all the cases would run consecutively or concurrently. The petitioner filed the petition before the High Court, seeking to undergo his sentences concurrently.
Justice G.R. Swaminathan observed that under Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. (Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence) if the sentencing court failed to pass any specific direction that the subsequent direction should run concurrently with previous sentence, it would run consecutively.
Suppose on a single day, an accused was found guilty in more than one case and sentenced, it was for the court concerned to clarify as to when the sentence in the subsequent case would take effect. If the court was silent on this aspect, the sentences would start running from the date when they were given effect to.
Such an adverse consequence emanating from the silence of the court had a serious implication for personal liberty. The Constitution attached a very high value to personal liberty. Therefore, such a provision must be construed in a manner that was at once fair, just and reasonable. The sentences would necessarily run only concurrently, the judge said, and allowed the petition.
