2021-TIOL-261-SC-NDPS
Mohd Zahid Vs State Through NCB
NDPS - Recovery of Heroin - Before the Delhi High Court, it was mainly submitted on behalf of the appellant-accused that as he had already undergone 12 years sentence in a case arising out of FIR No.134/1999 [4kg heroin], he cannot be punished twice and that in a case arising out of FIR No.43/1999 [750 grams heroin] he has already undergone sentence of 6 years and 2 months, a lenient view may be taken and the sentences imposed in both the cases/trials, one arising out of FIR No.134/1999 (Amritsar Case) and another arising out of FIR No.43/1999 (New Delhi Case) shall be held to run concurrently - High Court dismissed the above contention of the appellant-accused and hence the present appeal.
Held: ++ Short question which is posed for the consideration is, whether, the sentences imposed against the appellant-accused by two different courts in two different trials should run concurrently or consecutively. [para 8]
++ It is required to be noted that judgments have been delivered in both the cases one after another and in the subsequent judgment and order of conviction and sentence by the Delhi Court there is no specific order passed by the learned Trial Court (Court at Delhi) that the sentences to run concurrently. [para 8.1]
++ On a fair reading of Section 427 of CrPC , when a person who is 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. Meaning thereby the sentences in both the conviction shall run consecutively. However, there is an exception to that, namely unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.
++ There is one another exception. As per Subsection (2) of Section 427 of CrPC 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. Therefore, in aforesaid two cases only the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with previous sentence. Otherwise the subsequent sentence shall run consecutively and the imprisonment in subsequent sentence shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced. [para 8.2]
(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 CrPC ;
(iv) under Section 427(1) of CrPC , 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. [para 9]
++ In the present case, the appellant has been convicted with respect to two different transactions, there are different crime numbers and the cases have been decided by the different judgments. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to any benefit of concurrent sentence under Section 427 of CrPC . [para 10]
++ Discretion [u/s 427] has to be exercised judiciously depending upon the nature of offence or the offences committed.
++ No leniency should be shown to an accused who is found to be guilty for the offence under the NDPS Act. Those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instruments in causing death or in inflicting death blow to a number of innocent young victims who are vulnerable. Such accused causes deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society. They are hazard to the society. ++ Therefore, while awarding the sentence or punishment in case of NDPS Act, the interest of the society as a whole is required to be taken into consideration. Therefore, even while applying discretion under Section 427 of CrPC , the discretion shall not be in favour of the accused who is found to be indulging in illegal trafficking in the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. [para 11]
- Appeal dismissed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
