Kerala High Court on Grant of Concurrent Sentence for the Subsequent Offence

Must Read

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and...

Follow us

The Kerala HC stated that the benefit under S.427 Cr.P.C. could be claimed only before the court hearing the later offence. This was in the case of Mushthafa S/O.Muhammed, Naduthodi House, Manjeri Amsom Desom, Chandakunnu, Malappuram. V. State Of Kerala And Anr.

Brief Facts and Prayer

The appellant was held in an offence under the NDPS Act. In addition to that, he was at a later point of time, convicted of another offence under the same Act. Thus, the present appeal was on the first conviction. One of the main prayers in the appeal was that the sentence imposed under the challenged judgement run simultaneously as under S.427 Cr.P.C. Noting S.427, the court noted four conditions to attract its benefit, viz.

1) The convicted person must already be undergoing a sentence of imprisonment.

2) The conviction is of a sentence of imprisonment, including imprisonment for life.

3) Such imprisonment for life will begin at the end of the first sentence.

4) The court directs that the latter sentence must run with the stated previous sentence.

Observations of the Court

The court observed the following points concerning the application of S.427 of Cr.P.C.

1) The rule is always that the sentence runs one after the other, and concurrency is an exception. A benefit of allowing the sentence to run is the discretion of the court.

2) That discretion should exercise itself by the court judging on the latter offence, only. The court also clarified that one might seek for the benefit in an appeal to the next conviction, but not in an appeal to the first one.

3) The court also emphasised that the benefit cannot confer for unrelated transactions. In such cases, the sentences should run consecutively.

4) The court mentioned that due to the appellant’s prior conviction under NDPS act, it makes him unfit for any consideration from the court.

5) Hon’ble Justice Haripal also placed on record the gravity of offences under the NDPS. He relied on Union of India v. Kuldeep Singh to state that NDPS offences have harmful impacts on the society and the economy. Hence, it becomes imperative to deal with such offences with an iron hand.

The Ruling of the Court

On these considerations, the court ruled that the appeal lacks merits. Thereby, the court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed an Order on 25th October...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Germany had violated the...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Supreme Court Asks Petitioner to Approach Bombay High Court in PIL for CBI Probe in Disha Salian Case

On the 26th of October 2020, the Apex Court heard the PIL praying for a CBI probe into the death of Disha Salian. The...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -