High Court · 2025

1. Heard Mr. Harsh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Nitin Kumar Srivasatava, learned counsel for the respondents as well as Mr. Ratan Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate-I for the State and perused the record.

2. The present Writ Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayer:- “Issue a writ, order or direction that the sentences awarded to the accused/petitioner vide judgments/orders dated 08.09.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (North Railway) Ghaziabad, in Criminal Case Nos. 2089/2022 under Sections 380, 411 arising out of FIR no. 114/2022, 2308/2022 under Sections 379, 411 arising out of FIR no. 176/2022, 2140/2022 under Section 380 arising out of FIR no. 212/2022, 2314/2022 under sections 382, 411 arising out of FIR no. 255/2022 and 2143/2022 under section 414 arising out of FIR no. 267/2022 (State versus Vicky & others), Police Station – G.R.P., Ghaziabad shall run concurrently and further may kindly be pleased issue orders or directions that the petition be released forthwith, on undergone sentences, in all the 5 criminal cases mentioned herein above.”

3. Briefly stated, the petitioner has been convicted by the trial court in five different cases for the offence of theft and snatching. The details of the sentence awarded in five cases are as follows:- Sr. No.

1. FIR First informant Date of conviction Sentence Rakshit Tiwari FIR No: 0114/2022 Dated : 22.05.2022 U/s : 380 IPC, PS: GRP, Ghaziabad, District: GRP Anubhag, Moradabad.

08.09.2023 U/s: 380 IPC: 01 year SI with fine of Rs. 1000/- U/s: 411 IPC: 01 year SI with fine of Rs. 1000/- (both the sentence shall run concurrently)

2. FIR No: 0176/2022, Dated: 05.07.2022, Anubhav

08.09.2023 U/s: 379 IPC: 01 year SI with fine of Rs. 1000/- U/s: 379, 411 IPC, PS: GRP Ghaziabad, District: GRP Anubhag, Moradabad

5. FIR No: 212/2022, Dated: 27.07.2022 U/s: 380 IPC PS: GRP Ghaziabad, District Ghaziabad FIR No: 0255/2022, Dated : 20.08.2022, U/s: 379 IPC, PS: GRP Ghaziabad, District: Ghaziabad FIR No: 0267/2022, Dated: 17.09.2022 U/s: 414 IPC PS: GRP Ghaziabad, District Ghaziabad U/s: 411 IPC: 01 year SI with fine of Rs. 1000/- (both the sentence shall run concurrently) Mohit Pal

08.09.2023 U/s: 380 IPC: 01 year SI with fine of Rs. 1000/- Ravi Verma 08.09.2023 U/s: 382 IPC: 01 year SI with fine of Rs. 1000/- U/s: 411 IPC: 01 year SI with fine of Rs. 1000/- (both the sentence shall run concurrently) SI Pramod Kumar

08.09.2023 U/s: 414 IPC: 01 year SI with fine of Rs. 1000/-

4. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner is languishing in jail since 17.09.2022. The petitioner is currently undergoing imprisonment in all the afore-mentioned 05 cases. The petitioner, being a poor fellow, is not in a position to pay the fine. For the non-payment of fine, petitioner would additionally undergo 16 days of imprisonment, which would lead to travesty of justice. It has also been submitted that the learned Magistrate has recorded the conviction and awarded sentence in all the five cases separately but did not order that the sentence shall run concurrently. Therefore, the petitioner is compelled to undergo 5 years incarceration without being given an opportunity of proper trial merely recording conviction, on the basis of confession.

5. It has been emphasized that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion while recording the sentence. The petitioner was neither defended by any advocate nor was offered any legal aid by the trial court. It has been pleaded that the petitioner is only 23 years of age and his family members were dependent on him. The petitioner was not named in the FIRs which were lodged against unknown persons and there was lack of evidence to hold the petitioner guilty.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Iqram v. State of U.P. and others, 2023(3) SCC, Page 184 decided on 16.12.2022, wherein it has been held that “once petitioner espoused remedy of moving a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, High Court ought to have noticed 2 of 5 serious miscarriage of justice, which would occur consequent upon trial court not having exercised specifically its discretion within ambit of Section of 427(1) Cr.P.C”.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently, refuted the aforesaid contention on the ground that the petitioner has been convicted separately in five different FIRs, therefore, he cannot avail the benefit of serving the sentence concurrently.

8. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner has been implicated in five different FIRs for separate incidents which took place on different dates and the FIRs have been registered by different first informants. Though, the trial court recorded the conviction of the petitioner on a single date but was tried separately in five different trials.

9. To appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it will be appropriate to refer the provisions of Section 427 Cr.P.C., which reads as under : “427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence-(1) 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; 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 committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately. (2) 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.”

10. Section 427 Cr.P.C. 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. In other words, sub-section (1) of Section 427 confers 3 of 5 a discretion on the Court to direct that the subsequent sentence following a conviction shall run concurrently with the previous sentence.

11. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court has clarified the law on Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. and has also laid down the principles of law in respect to concurrent and consecutive running of sentences in Mohd. Zahid v. State through NCB, (2022) 12 Supreme Court Cases 426.

12. It has been held that if the transactions related to the offences is not the same or the facts constituting the two offences are quite different in that case the subsequent sentence should run consecutively- Further, in absence of any direction as to running of subsequent sentence, as per general rule enunciated in Section 427(1), the subsequent sentence will not run concurrently but consecutively.

13. It has further been observed that even while exercising discretion under 427(1) Cr.P.C. to run subsequent sentence concurrently with the previous sentence, the discretion is to be exercised judiciously and depending upon the offence/offences committed. Therefore, considering that offences under the NDPS Act are very serious in nature and against the society at large, held, no discretion shall be exercised in favour of such accused who is indulging in multiple offences under the NDPS Act.

14. Further, the principles of law laid down are as under:- "(i) 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; (ii) 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; (iii) 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; (iv) 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, however discretion has to be exercised judiciously depending upon the nature of the offence or the offences committed and the facts in situation. However, there must be a specific direction or order by the court that the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence.” 4 of 5

15. From perusal of records, it transpires that the petitioner has been convicted separately in five different incidents having different case crime numbers lodged by various first informants and all the five cases have been decided by the separate judgments though, on a single date. Therefore, in light of the principles as laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Zahid (supra), there is no illegality in the order impugned.

16. In view of the above and for the reasons discussed, there is no merit in the matter.

17. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Order date:11.08.2025 Aditya Tripathi ADITYA TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 5 of 5

1. Heard Mr. Harsh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Nitin Kumar Srivasatava, learned counsel for the respondents as well as Mr. Ratan Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate-I for the State and perused the record.

2. The present Writ Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayer:- “Issue a writ, order or direction that the sentences awarded to the accused/petitioner vide judgments/orders dated 08.09.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (North Railway) Ghaziabad, in Criminal Case Nos. 2089/2022 under Sections 380, 411 arising out of FIR no. 114/2022, 2308/2022 under Sections 379, 411 arising out of FIR no. 176/2022, 2140/2022 under Section 380 arising out of FIR no. 212/2022, 2314/2022 under sections 382, 411 arising out of FIR no. 255/2022 and 2143/2022 under section 414 arising out of FIR no. 267/2022 (State versus Vicky & others), Police Station – G.R.P., Ghaziabad shall run concurrently and further may kindly be pleased issue orders or directions that the petition be released forthwith, on undergone sentences, in all the 5 criminal cases mentioned herein above.”

3. Briefly stated, the petitioner has been convicted by the trial court in five different cases for the offence of theft and snatching. The details of the sentence awarded in five cases are as follows:- Sr. No.

1. FIR First informant Date of conviction Sentence Rakshit Tiwari FIR No: 0114/2022 Dated : 22.05.2022 U/s : 380 IPC, PS: GRP, Ghaziabad, District: GRP Anubhag, Moradabad.

08.09.2023 U/s: 380 IPC: 01 year SI with fine of Rs. 1000/- U/s: 411 IPC: 01 year SI with fine of Rs. 1000/- (both the sentence shall run concurrently)

2. FIR No: 0176/2022, Dated: 05.07.2022, Anubhav

08.09.2023 U/s: 379 IPC: 01 year SI with fine of Rs. 1000/- U/s: 379, 411 IPC, PS: GRP Ghaziabad, District: GRP Anubhag, Moradabad

5. FIR No: 212/2022, Dated: 27.07.2022 U/s: 380 IPC PS: GRP Ghaziabad, District Ghaziabad FIR No: 0255/2022, Dated : 20.08.2022, U/s: 379 IPC, PS: GRP Ghaziabad, District: Ghaziabad FIR No: 0267/2022, Dated: 17.09.2022 U/s: 414 IPC PS: GRP Ghaziabad, District Ghaziabad U/s: 411 IPC: 01 year SI with fine of Rs. 1000/- (both the sentence shall run concurrently) Mohit Pal

08.09.2023 U/s: 380 IPC: 01 year SI with fine of Rs. 1000/- Ravi Verma 08.09.2023 U/s: 382 IPC: 01 year SI with fine of Rs. 1000/- U/s: 411 IPC: 01 year SI with fine of Rs. 1000/- (both the sentence shall run concurrently) SI Pramod Kumar

08.09.2023 U/s: 414 IPC: 01 year SI with fine of Rs. 1000/-

4. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner is languishing in jail since 17.09.2022. The petitioner is currently undergoing imprisonment in all the afore-mentioned 05 cases. The petitioner, being a poor fellow, is not in a position to pay the fine. For the non-payment of fine, petitioner would additionally undergo 16 days of imprisonment, which would lead to travesty of justice. It has also been submitted that the learned Magistrate has recorded the conviction and awarded sentence in all the five cases separately but did not order that the sentence shall run concurrently. Therefore, the petitioner is compelled to undergo 5 years incarceration without being given an opportunity of proper trial merely recording conviction, on the basis of confession.

5. It has been emphasized that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion while recording the sentence. The petitioner was neither defended by any advocate nor was offered any legal aid by the trial court. It has been pleaded that the petitioner is only 23 years of age and his family members were dependent on him. The petitioner was not named in the FIRs which were lodged against unknown persons and there was lack of evidence to hold the petitioner guilty.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Iqram v. State of U.P. and others, 2023(3) SCC, Page 184 decided on 16.12.2022, wherein it has been held that “once petitioner espoused remedy of moving a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, High Court ought to have noticed 2 of 5 serious miscarriage of justice, which would occur consequent upon trial court not having exercised specifically its discretion within ambit of Section of 427(1) Cr.P.C”.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently, refuted the aforesaid contention on the ground that the petitioner has been convicted separately in five different FIRs, therefore, he cannot avail the benefit of serving the sentence concurrently.

8. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner has been implicated in five different FIRs for separate incidents which took place on different dates and the FIRs have been registered by different first informants. Though, the trial court recorded the conviction of the petitioner on a single date but was tried separately in five different trials.

9. To appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it will be appropriate to refer the provisions of Section 427 Cr.P.C., which reads as under : “427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence-(1) 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; 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 committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately. (2) 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.”

10. Section 427 Cr.P.C. 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. In other words, sub-section (1) of Section 427 confers 3 of 5 a discretion on the Court to direct that the subsequent sentence following a conviction shall run concurrently with the previous sentence.

11. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court has clarified the law on Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. and has also laid down the principles of law in respect to concurrent and consecutive running of sentences in Mohd. Zahid v. State through NCB, (2022) 12 Supreme Court Cases 426.

12. It has been held that if the transactions related to the offences is not the same or the facts constituting the two offences are quite different in that case the subsequent sentence should run consecutively- Further, in absence of any direction as to running of subsequent sentence, as per general rule enunciated in Section 427(1), the subsequent sentence will not run concurrently but consecutively.

13. It has further been observed that even while exercising discretion under 427(1) Cr.P.C. to run subsequent sentence concurrently with the previous sentence, the discretion is to be exercised judiciously and depending upon the offence/offences committed. Therefore, considering that offences under the NDPS Act are very serious in nature and against the society at large, held, no discretion shall be exercised in favour of such accused who is indulging in multiple offences under the NDPS Act.

14. Further, the principles of law laid down are as under:- "(i) 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; (ii) 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; (iii) 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; (iv) 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, however discretion has to be exercised judiciously depending upon the nature of the offence or the offences committed and the facts in situation. However, there must be a specific direction or order by the court that the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence.” 4 of 5

15. From perusal of records, it transpires that the petitioner has been convicted separately in five different incidents having different case crime numbers lodged by various first informants and all the five cases have been decided by the separate judgments though, on a single date. Therefore, in light of the principles as laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Zahid (supra), there is no illegality in the order impugned.

16. In view of the above and for the reasons discussed, there is no merit in the matter.

17. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Order date:11.08.2025 Aditya Tripathi ADITYA TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 5 of 5