E. Manikandan v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 19.08.2010CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAMANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANANHCP. No.901 of 2010E. Manikandan... PetitionerVs.1. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Home Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore. ... RespondentsPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,seeking to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondentsto treat the subsequent life sentence of the petitioner passed inS.C. No.206 of 2003 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court), Vellore by its judgment dated 27.10.2004 asconfirmed by this Court in C.A. No.597 of 2005 by its judgment dated11.6.2007 passed against the detenu by name Manikandan, S/o. G.Elangovan residing at No.30, Mariamman Koil Street, Gandhipet,Tirupattur, Vellore District who is now confined in Central Prison,Vellore as concurrent with the imprisonment of life passed in S.C.No.176 of 2002 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore by itsjudgment dated 17.7.2003 as confirmed by this Court made in C.A.No.1856 of 2003 by its judgment dated 10.7.2006 and to cause theproduction of the body or person of the detenu before this Court andset him at liberty since the legality of the continued imprisonmentis illegal.For Petitioner: Mr. S. Shanmughavelayutham, Senior counsel for Mr. VijayaraghavanFor Respondents : Mr. Babu Muthumeeran Additional Public Prosecutor https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM,J)This habeas corpus petition is brought forth by thepetitioner for a direction to the respondents to treat his subsequentlife sentence passed in S.C. No.206 of 2003 by the AdditionalDistrict and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Vellore by itsjudgment dated 27.10.2004 and subsequently affirmed by this Court inC.A. No.597 of 2005 by its judgment dated 11.6.2007 as concurrentwith the imprisonment of life passed in S.C. No.176 of 2002 passed bythe Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore by its judgment dated 17.7.2003which was subsequently affirmed by this Court made in C.A. No.1856 of2003 by its judgment dated 10.7.2006.2. Affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused.The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner andalso the respondent-State.3. As could be seen from the available materials and theaverments made in the affidavit and also considering the submissionsmade by either side, it is noticed that the petitioner, who stoodcharged, tried along with his mother for the offence under Section302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code in S.C. No.176 of 2002 onthe file of the Principal Sessions Division, Vellore, was sentencedto undergo imprisonment for life by judgment dated 17th July, 2003.An appeal preferred therefrom in C.A. No.1856 of 2003 was disposed ofby this Court on 10.7.2006, whereby the conviction and sentence inrespect of this petitioner was affirmed. The judgment of the TrialCourt in respect of the second accused/mother of the petitioner wasset aside. 4. The petitioner also faced trial in S.C. No.206 of 2003on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast TrackCourt), Vellore for the offences under Sections 302 read with 506(ii)of the Indian Penal Code. On trial, he was found guilty andsentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine ofRs.1,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for fourmonths and an appeal preferred there from in C.A. No.597 of 2005 wasalso dismissed by a judgment dated 11.6.2007. 5. It is also an admitted position that while the secondjudgment was passed awarding life imprisonment, already he wasawarded life imprisonment in the earlier case and hence two separatesentences for life imprisonment were to be suffered by the petitionerherein. Under such circumstances, this application has been broughtforth by the petitioner, seeking an order of this Court that both thesentences have to run concurrently. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learnedSenior Counsel would urge that these two separate sentences have torun concurrently. As per Section 427(2) of the Criminal ProcedureCode, when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment forlife was sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for aterm or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence should runconcurrently with such previous sentence. In order to fortify hiscontention, learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the ApexCourt reported in the case of RANJIT SINGH v. UNION TERRITORY OFCHANDIGARH ((1991) 4 S.C.C. 304) .7. In reply to the above, learned counsel appearing for theState would submit that it is not the case where it could be orderedconcurrently. An application like this cannot be brought forth bythe petitioner. Apart from this, in the second sentence when therewas no specific order to run concurrently, the sentences have to berun consecutively. In support of his submission, learned counselrelied on the decision reported in the case of M.R. KUDVA v. STATE OFA.P. ((2007) 1 S.C.C. (CRL.) 648).8. The Court paid its anxious consideration on thesubmissions made. It is not in controversy that as stated above, thepetitioner stood tried in S.C. No.176 of 2002 on the charge ofmurder and he was also awarded life imprisonment by judgment dated17th July, 2003, which was also confirmed in C.A. No.1856 of 2003 bya judgment dated 10.7.2006. It could be seen from the materialsavailable on record that he faced another trial in S.C. No.206 of2003 and he was awarded life imprisonment on being found guilty ofmurder and the appeal filed against the said judgment also fails.9. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counselappearing for the petitioner, if these two different sentences weregiven at different point of time, they would run consecutively andnot concurrently. It is apt and appropriate to produce Section 427of the Code of Criminal Procedure as follows:-"(1) When a person already undergoing asentence of imprisonment is sentenced on asubsequent conviction to imprisonment orimprisonment for life, such imprisonment orimprisonment for life shall commence at theexpiration of the imprisonment to which he hasbeen previously sentenced, unless the Courtdirects that the subsequent sentence shall runconcurrently with such previous sentence:(2) When a person already undergoing asentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a termor imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentenceshall run concurrently with such previoussentence."10. A reading of the above would make it clear that if alife convict is subsequently given life imprisonment, it must be runconcurrently. The judgment referred to above in 1991(4) S.C.C. 304(cited supra) has got to be applied to the present case on hand,whereas the judgment relied on by the learned Additional PublicProsecutor in ((2007) 1 S.C.C. (Crl.) 648) cannot be applied to thepresent facts of the case. It is a fit case where Section 427(2) ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure has got to be applied to the presentcase on hand and the contention put forth by the learned SeniorCounsel appearing for the petitioner has got to be accepted.11. Accordingly, the life imprisonment awarded in both thecases are ordered to run concurrently. The habeas corpus petitionstands disposed of.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarssa.To1. The Secretary, The State of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.2 cc To Mr.T.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate, SR.61553H.C.P. No.901 of 2010TRM (CO)RH (31.8.10)