Dr. T. Srinivasa Rao

ry

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC),

NIRMAL.

Present:Dr.T.Srinivasa Rao, I Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad. FAC: VII Additional Sessions Judge (FTC),Nirmal.

Tuesday, the 12" dayofJanuary,2021

Criminal AppealNo.20/2020

Judgmentin Criminal AppealCriminal Appeal No.20/2020 From what court the appeal isAddl. Judicial Magistrateof First Class, Nirmal. preferred

Number of the case in thatC.C.No.824/2019 court

Number of the appealCriminal Appeal No.20/2020

The State of Telangana representedby Sub Name complainant Inspectorof Police, PS Laxmanchanda.

Name and descriptionof the|1) Sayyed Akbar S/o Nizam, aged34years,

: Oce: Coolie, R/o Shantinagar, Khanapur town. appellants/accused

SK Mahaboob@ Sharooq, S/oNabisha) 2) aged32years,Occ: Coolie,R/o Vellulla village of Metpally mandal.

In the result, the accusedNo.1 and 2are Result of the lower court foundfortheoffencepunishable guilty and380IPCand _theyare U/sec.457 accordingly convicted U/sec.241CrPC and sentenced to undergoSI for 8 months under section 457 and9months andto payfine of Rs.100/- under both counts,IDSIfor two months. The appeal is partly allowed by modifying Whether confirmed, revised the sentence to run concurrently with the andif modified

sentenceofrestof other four CCsie,CC

and

Nos.689/2019,768/2019,690/2019, 825/2019 inCriminal appealsi.e., 18, 19, 21 and 22 of2020 onthe file of this court.The DistrictAdilabadis Superintendent,Jail, directedtoreleasetheappellants/accused No.1 and 2 forthwith inthe above said cases if they are not requiredin anyother case.

Notice |

|Bail BondJudgment

Presentation20.5.2020 | 20.5.2020|FilingHearing

] _| g

-Gal 11.1.2021

-12.1.2021 | | hs aUneINU Lu) 2be0

This Criminal Appeal has been finally heard on11.1.2021 in thepresence of Sri K.Vinod Rao, Additional PP, for theStateand of SriD.Jaganmohan, Advocate for appellant (State Brief) and upon hearing both sides and having<b stood for consideration till this day,this court delivered thefollowing:

JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal is filed by the appellants against the judgment of at conviction passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nirmal in C.C.No.824/2019,dated 24.2.2020 convicting the appellants for the offences under sections 457 and 380 of IPC and sentenced them to undergoSI for 8 months under section 457 IPC and 9 months under section 380 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.200/- under both the counts, IDSI for two months and both the sentencesshall run concurrently.

The brief facts of the case are that on the intervening night of 10/11-8- 2.

2019 at Babapur thanda village, accused No.1 and 2 tresspassed into a temple bybroke opening the lockand door, opened the Hundi and committed theftof - cash and silver and thus committed the offences under sections 457 and 380 of

IPC.

The trial court had taken cognizance against the accused No.1 and 2 for 3.

the offence punishable U/secs.457 and 380 IPC and afterappearanceof both the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them under Section 207

Cr.PC and they were examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C and the contents of charge

U/sec.457 and380IPC, read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded guilty, on which the lower court sentenced the appellants as above.

4.Aggrievedof the said judgment,the appellants had preferred this criminal appeal and urged, apart from the usual grounds, the following specific groundsofappeal Thatthe order of the lower court is based on assumptions presumptions.It is also urged that at the time of their examination, police

Cré. AppealNo.20/20203 rs tutored them that they will be fined only,ifthey admitted the guilt, sothe appellants admitted the guilt.He also submitted that the appellants were convicted in five cases on the same day andhenceservingofsentencein one caseisenoughin all five casesand theyneed not to serve sentence in all five cases assentenced above. It is also submitted that the appellants paid total fine amount inthe lower court and prayedto allow the appeal.

Heard both sides. 5.

Now, the point that arosefor determination is: 6.

Whether all the sentences imposedinimpugned judgments in CC 690/2019, 768/2019 824/2019and 825/2019dt.24.2.2020 Nos.689/2019, shall run concurrently?

Perusal of record shows that in lower courttheappellants were 7.

voluntarily admitted theirguilt, on which the lower court convicted and - sentenced them to undergoSI for 8 months under section 457 IPC and 9 months under section 380 IPC andalso to payfine ofRs.200/- under both the counts,in default of payment of fine, theyshall suffer simple imprisonmentfor aperiod of two months and both the sentencesshallrun concurrently.

Here it is pertinent to note that the appellants/accusedNo.1 and 2 herein 8.

were convicted in fivecases ie.,CCNos.689/2019,690/2019,768/2019 824/2019 and825/2019 onthe file of Additional JudicialMagistrateof First

Class, Nirmal on 24.2.2020and inall the above cases they were sentenced as stated above.

Here is the question that can sentences pronouncedin different casesrun 9.

concurrently” The Gujarath High Court in a case of Kapadia stated thatthe its discretion to notallowthe sentencesto run lower court had used

court under

4Cn. ppealSVo.2u/ailel

Section 482 of the Criminal ProcedureCode “cannot be pressed in aid exceptfor remedyingaflagrant abuse by a subordinate court of its powers.”Therefore, “the refusal of the court below to direct the sentencesto run concurrently with the previous sentence cannot be said to have caused any miscarriage of justice.”

In another case of Gopal Vinayak Godse Vs. State of Maharashtra, 10.

Supreme Court observed that “a sentence ofimprisonmentfor life must prima facie be treated as a sentence of imprisonment for the whole of the remaining periodof the convicted persons natural life unless commuted or remitted.” The court also cited Section 427(2) ofCrPCwhichsays,“whena person already lifetermissentencedonasubsequentconvictionto undergoinga imprisonment for aterm or imprisonmentfor life, thesubsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previoussentence.”It allowed Ramaiah’s petition _

saying his two sentences wouldrun concurrently.

11.A combined reading of the provisions embodied in Sections 31(1), 427 and 428 of CrPC and Section 64 of IPC gives out a completed scheme of calculatingtheperiodofimprisonment passed as sentence ,the ordinaryrule being that the sentences awarded shallrun consequently, unless thecourt directs that the sentences passed, in more than one case, shall run concurrently.

On the Fear) given by the appellants to the

12,Secretary,DLSA.,

Adilabad, the Superintendent, District Jail, Adilabad has given explanation stating that the Hon’bleMagistratehas given the remand period by givingset off and to run the sentences concurrently in each CC separately, hence all the ©vabove five sentences are in process to complete as per 427 CrPC. NS

Cré Appeal No.20/2020§

Here, the appellants/accusedNo.1 and 2were convicted and sentenced 13.

in five cases and serving sentence from 24.2.2020i.e, more than imposed sentence against them. However,if all the five sentencesrunconsecutively, it will amount to 9 monthsX 5i.e., three years nine months. It is the contention that assuming that theywill be given the benefitof of theappellants concurrentlyin all five cases, they optedfor the admissions.Any how the learned Additional Public Prosecutorhas no objection to give concurrently finding and release the appellants. In VKBanselVs.State of Haryana, it was held generally sentences should run consequently (thatis oneafter another, but court has the discretion todirect sentencestorun concurrently). Therefore, in view of the above discussion and law position, pleaof the accused and as discussed above, the sentences imposed against the appellants/accusedNo.1 and 2 in all the above saidfive cases shallrun concurrently.

The appealis partly allowed by modifying the

IN THERESULT,

sentence to run concurrently with the sentence of rest of other four CCs i.e., CC 690/2019, 768/2019and 825/2019in Criminal appeals i.e., 18, Nos.689/2019, 19, 21 and 22 of 2020 on thefile of thiscourt.The Superintendent, District Jail,

Adilabad is directed to release the appellants/accusedNo.1 and 2 forthwith in the above said casesif they are not requiredinany othercase.

open court on Typed to my dictation and aftercorrection pronounced by me in is the 12¢" day of January, 2021.

I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD.

FAC: VII ADDITIONALSESSIONS

JUDGE (FTC), NIRMAL.

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC),

NIRMAL.

Present:Dr.T.Srinivasa Rao, I Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad. FAC: VII Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Nirmal.

Tuesday, the 12%dayofJanuary,2021

Criminal Appeal No.18/2020 udgmentin Criminal AppealCriminal Appeal No.18/2020 From what court the appeal isAddl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, preferredNirmal.

Number of the case in that C.C.No.689/2019 court

Number of the appealCriminal Appeal No.18/2020

Name complainantThe State of Telangana represented bySub] Inspectorof Police, PS Dasturabad. Name and description of the1) Sayyed Akbar S/o Nizam, aged 34 years, appellants/ accusedOcc: Coolie, R/o Shantinagar, Khanapur town.

SK Mahaboob@ Sharooq, S/o Nabisha, 2) aged32years,Occ:Coolie, R/o Vellulla village| of Metpally mandal.

Result of the lower courtIn the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are foundforthe guiltyoffencepunishable U/sec.457and380IPCand theyare accordingly convicted U/sec.241 CrPC and sentenced to undergo SI for 8 months under section 457 and 9 months and to pay fine of Rs.100/- under both counts,IDSI for two months. Whether confirmed, revised The appeal is partly allowed by modifying and if modified the sentence to run concurrently with the sentence of rest of other four CCs ie, CC Nos.690/2019,768/2019824/2019and 825/2019 in Criminal appeals i.e., 19 to 22 of 2020onthefileofthis court.The Superintendent,DistrictJail,Adilabad is directedtoreleasethe appellants/accused No.1 and 2 forthwith in the above said cases if they are not required in any other case. | Presentation| Bail Bond| Hearing FilingNotice

|111.2021 |Judgment

| "S55205.2020 20.5.2020 |12.1.2021

Crt. AppealNo. 18/2020 2

This Criminal Appeal has been finally heard on 11.1.2021 in the presence of Sri K.Vinod Rao,Additional PP, for the State and of Sri D.Jaganmohan, Advocatefor appellant (StateBrief) and upon hearing both sides and having - stood for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

against the This criminal appealis filed bytheappellant/complaint ul judgmentof conviction passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of

dated 24.2.2020 convicting the

NirmalinC.C.No.689/2019,

FirstClass,

appellants for the offences under sections 457 and 380 of IPC and sentenced 8 months under section 457 IPC and9months under them to undergoSI for section380 IPC and topayfine of Rs.200/- under both the counts, IDSI for two months and both the sentencesshall run concurrently.

The brief facts of thecase are that on the intervening night of 2/ 3-7-2019 2; at Munyal thanda village, accused No.1 and 2 tresspassed into a temple by broke opening the lock and door, opened the Hundi and committed theft of cash andsilverand thus committed the offences under sections 457 and 380 of

IPC.

The trial court had takencognizanceagainst the accused No.1 and 2 for 3.

appearanceof both the offence punishable U/secs.457 and 380 IPC and after the accused, copiesof documents were furnished to them under Section 207

Cr.PC and they were examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C and the contents of charge

U/sec.457 and 380 IPC, read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded guilty, on which the lower court sentenced the appellants as above.

Aggrievedof the said judgment, the appellants had preferred this 4, criminal appeal and urged, apart from the usual grounds, the following specific groundsof appeal That the order of the lower court is based on assumptions

It is also urged that at the time of their examination, police~ resumptions.

Cré Appeal No.18/20203 “tutored them that they will be fined only, if they admitted the guilt, so the

AV

appellants admitted theguilt.He also submitted that the appellants were convicted in five cases on the same day and hence serving of sentence in one caseisenough in all five cases and they need not to serve sentence in all five cases as sentenced above. It is also submitted that the appellants paid total fine amount in the lower court and prayed to allow the appeal.

5.Heard both sides.

6.Now, the point that arose for determination is:

Whether all the sentences imposed in impugned judgments in CC Nos.689/2019,690/2019, 768/2019 824/2019 and 825/2019 dt.24.2.2020 shall run concurrently?

7Perusal of record shows that in lower court the appellants were

voluntarily admitted their guilt, on which the lower court convicted and sentenced them to undergo SI for 8 months under section 457 IPC and 9 months , under section 380 IPC and also to pay fine of Rs.200/- under both the counts, in default of payment of fine, they shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months and both the sentences shall run concurrently.

8.Here it is pertinent to note that the appellants/accused No.1 and 2 herein

cases ie, CC

were convictedinfive690/2019, 768 /2019 Nos.689/2019, 824/2019 and825/2019 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Nirmal on 24.2.2020 and in all the above cases they were sentenced as stated above.

0:Here is the question that can sentences pronounced in different cases run concurrently’The Gujarath High Court in a case of Kapadia stated that the

S Q

coplurrenty,

The High Court said the extraordinary power of the court under

Cr, Appeal No. 18/2020 4

Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code “cannot be pressed in aid except for remedyingaflagrant abuse by a subordinate court of its powers.”Therefore, (~ > “the refusalof the court below to direct the sentences to run concurrently with the previous sentence cannotbe said to have caused any miscarriage of justice.”

In another case ofGopal Vinayak Godse Vs. State of Maharashtra, 10.

Supreme Court observed that “a sentence of imprisonment for life must prima facie be treated as a sentenceofimprisonmentfor the whole of the remaining periodof the convicted persons natural life unless commuted or remitted.” The courtalso cited Section 427(2) of CrPC which says, “when a person already convictionto sentencedonasubsequent lifetermis undergoinga imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall

It allowedRamaiah’spetition runconcurrently with such previous sentence.”

saying his two sentences would run concurrently.

A combined readingof theprovisions embodied in Sections 31(1), 427 11.

and 428 ofCrPC and Section 64 of IPC gives out a completed scheme of calculatingthe period of imprisonment passed as sentence , the ordinary rule being that the sentences awarded shall run consequently, unless the court directs that the sentences passed, in more than one case, shall run concurrently.

py

On the complaint givenby the appellants to the Secretary,DLSA., 12.

Adilabad, the Superintendent, District Jail, Adilabad has given explanation stating that the Hon'ble Magistrate has given the remand period by giving set off and to run the sentences concurrently in each CC separately, hence all the above five sentencesare in process to complete as per 427 CrPC.

Crt. AppealNo.18/2020§ “13.Here, the appellants/accusedNo.1 and2were convicted and sentenced in five cases and serving sentence from 24.2.2020 i.e., more than imposed sentence against them. However, if all the five sentences run consecutively, it will amount to 9 months X 5 i.e., three years nine months. It is the contention of the appellants that assuming that theywillbe giventhe benefit of concurrentlyin all five cases, they opted for the admissions.Any how the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no objection to give concurrently finding and release the appellants. In VK Bansel Vs. State of Haryana, it was held generally sentences should run consequently (that is one after another, but court has the discretion to direct sentences to run concurrently). Therefore, in view of the above discussion and law position, plea of the accused and as discussed above, the sentences imposed against the appellants/accused No.1 and2 in all the above said five cases shall run concurrently.

IN THE RESULT, The appeal is partly allowed by modifying the sentence to run concurrently with the sentence of rest of other four CCs i.e., CC

Nos.690/2019, 768/2019,824/2019 and 825/2019 in Criminal appeals i.e., 19 to 22 of 2020 on the file of this court. The Superintendent, District Jail, Adilabad is directed to release the appellants/accused No.1 and 2 forthwith in the above said cases if they are not required in any other case.

Typedto my dictation and after correction pronounced by me in open on ci this the 12 day of January, 2021.

yal\

woe ANY

I ADDL. SESSIONS

JUDGE,

i

ADILABAD.

FAC: VII ADDITIONAL

SESSIONS

JUDGE (FTC), NIRMAL.

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC),

NIRMAL.

Present:Dr.T.Srinivasa Rao, I Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad. FAC: VII Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Nirmal.

Tuesday, the 12" dayofJanuary,2021

Criminal Appeal No.22/2020

|: | Criminal Appeal No.22/2020

Judgment in Criminal Appeal: | Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

From what court the appeal is |

preferredNirmal.

: | C.C.No.768/2019

Number of the case in that court

: | Criminal Appeal No.22/2020

Number of the appeal

: | The State of Telangana represented

Name complainantby Sub

|: | 1) Sayyed Akbar S/o Nizam, aged 34 years,

Inspectorof Police,PSKhanapur. Name and description of the appellants/ accusedOcc: Coolie, R/o Shantinagar, Khanapur town.

2) SK Mahaboob@ Sharoog, S/o Nabisha, aged32years,Occ:Coolie, R/o Vellulla village| of Metpally mandal.

Result of the lower court|In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are : foundguiltyfortheoffence punishable U/sec.457and380IPCand theyare accordingly convicted U/sec.241CrPC and sentenced to undergo SI for 8 months under section 457 and 9 months and to pay fine of Rs.100/- under both counts, IDSI for two

|: | The appeal is partly allowed by modifying

months. Whether confirmed, revised

and if modified

the sentence to run concurrently with the

| |

sentence of rest of other four CCs i.e, CC Nos.689/2019,690/2019,824/2019and 825/2019 in Criminal appeals i.e., 19 to 22 of 2020onthefileofthiscourt.The Superintendent,DistrictJail,Adilabadis directedto release the appellants/accused No.1 and 2 forthwith in the above said cases if

they are not required in any other case.Bond |

Presentation| _ Filing

| Bail NoticeHearing|Judgment .| - yPegabeSeah20.5.2020111.2021 20.5:202012.1.2021 |zl |

Crt. Appeal No.22/2020 2

This Criminal Appeal has been finally heard on11.1.2021 in the presence of Sri K.Vinod Rao, Additional PP, forthe State andof SriD.Jaganmohan, é Advocate for appellant (State Brief)and upon hearing both sides and having stood for consideration till this day, this court delivered thefollowing:

JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal is filed by theagainstthe Lappellant/complaint judgmentof conviction passedby the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of

Nirmaldated24.2.2020 convictingthe

FirstClass,inC.C.No.768/2019,

appellantsfor the offences under sections 457 and 380 of IPC and sentenced 8 months under section 457 IPC and 9 months under them to undergoSI for section380IPC and to payfine ofRs.200/- under both the counts, IDSI for two months and both the sentencesshallrun concurrently.

The brief facts of the case are that on the intervening night of 20/21-9- 2.

at Khanapur village,accused No.1 and 2 tresspassed into a temple by 2019 .

broke opening thelock and door, openedthe Hundi and committed theft of cash and silver and thus committed the offences under sections 457 and 380 of

IRC.

The trial court had taken cognizance against the accused No.1 and 2 for 3.

the offence punishable U/secs.457 and 380 IPC and afterappearanceof both the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them under Section 207

Cr.-PC and they were examined U/sec.239Cr.P.C and the contents of charge

U/sec.457 and 380 IPC, read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded guilty, on which the lower court sentenced the appellants as above.

Aggrievedof the said judgment, the appellants had preferred this 4.

criminal appeal and urged, apart from the usual grounds, the following specific groundsofappeal That the order of the lower court is based on assumptions *

Cl AppealNo.22/2020 3

> aera them that they will be fined only, if they admitted the guilt, so thevY

appellants admitted theguilt.He also submitted that the appellants were convicted in five cases on the same day and hence serving of sentence in one caseisenough inall five cases and they need not to serve sentencein all five cases as sentencedabove. It is alsosubmitted that the appellants paid totalfine amount in the lower court and prayed to allow the appeal.

5.Heard both sides.

Now, the point that arose for determination is: 6.

Whether all the sentences imposed in impugned judgments in CC Nos.689/2019, 690/2019, 768/2019 824/2019 and 825/2019 dt.24.2.2020 shall run concurrently?

Perusal of record shows that in lower court the appellants were us . voluntarily admitted their guilt,on which the lower court convicted and 8 months under section 457 IPC and 9 months ;sentenced them to undergo SI for under section 380 IPC and also to pay fine of Rs.200/- under both the counts, in default of payment of fine, they shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months and both the sentences shall run concurrently.

8.Here it is pertinent to note that the appellants/accused No.1 and 2 herein

were convictedcases ie,

in fiveCC Nos.689/2019,690/2019,768/2019 824/2019 and825/2019 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Nirmal on 24.2.2020 and in all the above cases they were sentenced as stated above.

9.Here is the question that can sentences pronounced in different cases run concurrently®The Gujarath High Court in a case of Kapadia stated that the 4Crl. Appeal No.22/2020

Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code “cannot be pressed in aid except for remedying a flagrant abuseby asubordinate court of itspowers.”Therefore, w “the refusal of the court below to direct the sentences to run concurrently with the previous sentence cannot be said to have caused any miscarriageof justice.”

In another case of Gopal Vinayak Godse Vs. State of Maharashtra, 10.

Supreme Court observed that “a sentence ofimprisonmentfor life must prima facie be treated as a sentence of imprisonment for the wholeofthe remaining periodof the convicted persons natural life unless commuted or remitted.” The court also cited Section 427(2)of CrPC whichsays,“whena person already lifetermsentencedsubsequentconvictionto undergoingaisona imprisonment foraterm or imprisonmentfor life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previoussentence.”It allowed Ramaiah’s petition — sayinghistwo sentences would run concurrently.

A combined reading of the provisions embodied in Sections 31(1), 427 11.

and 428 of CrPC and Section64 of IPC givesout a completedscheme of calculating the periodofimprisonment passed as sentence , the ordinary rule

beingthat the sentences awarded shall run consequently, unless the court

directs that the sentences passed,inmore than one case, shallrun concurrently.

On the complaint given bythe appellants to the Secretary, DLSA., 12.

Adilabad, the Superintendent, District Jail, Adilabad has given explanation statingthat the Hon’ble Magistrate has given the remand period by giving set off and to run the sentences concurrentlyin each CCseparately,hence all the z “Ssxabove five sentences are in process to complete as per427 CrPC.

SSNs,

Crl. AppealNo.22/20205 - ind Here, the appellants/accusedNo.1 and2were convicted and sentenced 13.

in five cases and serving sentence from24.2.2020 ie., more than imposed sentence against them. However,ifall the five sentences run consecutively, it will amount to 9 months X 5 i.e., three years nine months. It is the contention of theappellants that assuming that theywillbe given the benefit of concurrently in all five cases, they optedfor theadmissions.Anyhow the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no objection to give concurrently finding and release the appellants. InVK Bansel_Vs. State of Haryana, it was held generally sentences should run consequently (that is one after another, but court has the discretion to direct sentences to run concurrently). Therefore, in view of the above discussion and law position, plea of the accused and as _discussed above, the sentences imposed against the appellants/accusedNo.1 and 2 in all the above said five cases shall run concurrently.

IN THEThe appeal is partly allowed by modifying RESULT,the sentence to run concurrently with the sentence of rest of other four CCs i.e., CC

Nos.689/2019,690/2019,824/2019 and825/2019 in Criminal appeals i.e., 18 to 21 of 2020 on the file of this court.The Superintendent, District Jail,

Adilabad is directed to release the appellants/accused No.1 and 2 forthwith in the above said cases if they are not required in any other case.

Typed to my dictation and after correction pronounced by me in open court on is the 12* day of January, 2021.

I ADDL. SESSIONSJUDGE,

ADILABAD.

FAC: VII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS

JUDGE (FTC), NIRMAL.

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC),

NIRMAL.

Vv

Present:Dr.T.Srinivasa Rao, I Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad. FAC: VII Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Nirmal.

Tuesday,the 12 dayof January,2021

Criminal Appeal No.21/2020

Judgmentin Criminal AppealCriminal Appeal No.21/2020 From what court the appeal isAddl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, preferredNirmal.

Number of the case in that C.C.No.825/2019 court

Number of the appealCriminal Appeal No.21/2020

Name complainantThe State of Telangana represented bySub| Inspectorof Police, PS Laxmanchanda.

Name and description of the|

1) Sayyed Akbar S/o Nizam, aged 34 years, : appellants/ accusedOcc: Coolie, R/o Shantinagar, Khanapur town. -|

SK MahaboobSharoog, S/o Nabisha,

2)@ aged32years,Occ:Coolie, R/o Vellulla village| of Metpally mandal.

Result of the lower courtIn the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are foundguiltyfortheoffence punishable U/sec.457and380IPCand theyare accordingly convicted U/sec.241 CrPC and sentenced to undergo SI for 8 months under section 457 and 9 months and to pay fine of Rs.100/- under both counts,IDSI for two months. Whether confirmed, revisedThe appeal is partly allowed by modifying and if modified the sentence to run concurrently with the

sentence of rest of other four CCs ie, CC

Nos.689/2019,690/2019,768/2019and 824/2019 in Criminal appeals i.e., 18 to 20 and 22 of 2020 on the file of this court. The Superintendent,DistrictJail,Adilabad is directedto releasethe appellants/accused No.1 and 2 forthwith in the above said cases if

Bail Bond | Hearing

they are not required in any other case.

Presentation

FilingNotice Judgment - 20.5.2020 _11.1.202112.1.2021 2Cn.Appeal/2v'2u'

This Criminal Appeal has beenfinallyheard on11.1.2021 in the presence of Sri K.Vinod Rao,Additional PP, for the State and of Sri D.Jaganmohan, Advocate for appellant (StateBrief) and upon hearing both sides and having stood for considerationtill thisday, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

against the This criminal appealis filed bytheappellant/complaint 1.

judgmentof conviction passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of convicting the Nirmal indated24.2.2020

First Class,C.C.No.825/2019,

appellantsfor the offences under sections 457 and 380 of IPC and sentenced them to undergoSI for 8 months under section 457 IPC and 9 months under section 380 IPC and to payfine of Rs.200/- under both the counts, IDSI for two months and both the sentencesshallrunconcurrently.

The brief facts of thecase are that on the intervening night of 26/27-7- 2:

2019 at Dharmaram village,accused No.1 and 2 tresspassed into a temple by broke opening the lock and door, opened the Hundi and committed theft of cash and silver and thus committed the offences under sections 457 and 380 of

IRE.

The trial court had taken cognizance against the accused No.1 and 2 for 3.

appearanceof both the offence punishable U/secs.457 and 380 IPC and after the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them under Section 207

Cr.PC and they were examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C and the contents of charge

U/sec.457 and 380 IPC, read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded guilty, on which the lower court sentenced the appellants as above.

Aggrievedof the said judgment, the appellants had preferred this 4.

criminal appeal and urged, apart from the usual grounds, the following specific groundsofappeal That the order of the lower court is based on assumptions

It is also urged that atthe time of their examination, police and presumptions.

Crt. AppealNo.21/20203 ~ tutored them that they will be fined only, if they admitted the guilt, so the

v

appellants admitted theguilt.He also submitted that the appellants were convicted in five cases on the same day and hence serving of sentence in one caseisenough in all five cases and they need not to serve sentence in all five cases as sentenced above. It is also submitted that the appellants paid total fine amount in the lower court and prayed to allow the appeal.

5.Heard both sides.

6.Now,the point that arose for determinationis:

Whether all the sentences imposed in impugned judgments in CC Nos.689/2019, 690/2019, 768/2019 824/2019 and 825/2019 dt.24.2.2020 shall run concurrently?

Perusal of record shows that in lower court the appellants were vi voluntarily admitted their guilt, on which the lower court convicted and sentenced them to undergo SI for 8 months under section 457 IPC and 9 months under section 380 IPC and also to pay fine of Rs.200/- under both the counts, in default of payment of fine, they shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months and both the sentences shall run concurrently.

8.Here it is pertinent to note that the appellants/accused No.1 and 2 herein

cases ie. CC

were convictedinfive Nos.689/2019,690/2019,768/2019 824/2019 and825/2019 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Nirmal on 24.2.2020 and in all the above cases they were sentenced as stated above.

9.Here is the question that can sentences pronounced in different cases run concurrently? The Gujarath High Court in a case of Kapadia stated that the 4Cr, Appeal No.zi/zbzU'

Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code “cannot bepressed in aid exceptfor

~

remedyinga flagrant abuse by a subordinate court of its powers.”Therefore, “the refusalof the court below to direct the sentences to run concurrently with” the previous sentence cannotbe said to have caused any miscarriage of justice.”

In another case ofGopal Vinayak Godse Vs. State of Maharashtra, 10.

Supreme Court observed that “a sentence of imprisonment for life must prima facie be treated as a sentenceofimprisonmentfor the whole of the remaining periodof the convicted persons natural life unless commuted or remitted.” The courtalso cited Section 427(2) of CrPC whichsays,“when a person already sentencedconvictionto lifetermisonasubsequent undergoinga imprisonmentfor a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall

It allowed Ramaiah’s petition run concurrently with such previous sentence.”

saying his two sentences would run concurrently.

Acombined readingof theprovisions embodied in Sections 31(1), 427 11.

and 428 of CrPCand Section 64 of IPC gives out a completed scheme of calculating the periodof imprisonment passed as sentence , the ordinary rule being that the sentences awarded shall run consequently, unless the court directs that the sentences passed,in more than one case, shall run concurrently.

.On-the konagiven bythe appellants to the Secretary,

DLSA., 12,

District Jail, Adilabad has given explanation Adilabad, the Superintendent, statingthat the Hon’ble Magistrate has given the remand period by giving set off and to run the sentences concurrently in each CC separately, hence all the ovefive sentences are in process to complete as per 427 CrPC.

Cr Appeal No.21/2020§ ba 13. Here, the appellants/accusedNo.1 and 2were convicted and sentenced in five cases and serving sentence from 24.2.2020 i.e., more than imposed sentence againstthem. However,if allthefivesentences run consecutively,it will amount to 9 months X 5 i.e., three years nine months. It is the contention of the appellants that assuming that theywillbe given the benefit of concurrentlyin all five cases, they opted for the admissions.Any how the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no objection to give concurrently finding and release the appellants. InVK Banséj_Vs. State of Haryana, it was held generally sentences should run consequently (that is one after another, but court has the discretion to direct sentences to run concurrently). Therefore, in view of the above discussion and law position, plea of the accused and as discussed above, the sentences imposed against the appellants/accused No.1 "and 2 in all the above said five cases shall run concurrently.

IN THEThe appeal is partly allowed RESULT,by modifyingthe sentence to run concurrently with the sentence of rest of other four CCs i.e., CC

Nos.689/2019, 690/2019, 768/2019 and 824/2019in Criminal appeals i.e., 18 to 20 and 22 of 2020 on the file of this court. The Superintendent, District Jail,

Adilabad is directed to release the appellants/accused No.1 and 2 forthwith in the above said cases if they are not required in any other case.

Typed to my dictation and after correction pronounced by me in opencourt on tisthe 12% day of January, 2021.

7See

8 Vn

I ADDL. SESSIONS

JUDGE,

ADILABAD.

FAC: VII ADDITIONAL

SESSIONS

JUDGE (FTC), NIRMAL.

SF RBIsSaaS.

AMSOEDAe

RY

IN THE COURT OF THE Vir A

DDITION, A

L SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)BS

NIRMAL,

vw

Present: Dr.T.Srinivasa Rao,, I Ad id] Sessions udge, Adilabad J FAC: VII Addigf tional Sessions Judge (F TC), Nirmal

Tuesday,the 12th day of January, 2021

Criminal Appeal No.19/2020

Judgment in Criminal Appeal

oe[aeCriminal Appeal No.19/2020

From what court the aj iAddl. JudiciMagistrate of FirstClass,; ; preferred

Number of the case e in thati C.C.No.690/2019

des

Number of the appeal Criminal Appeal No.19/2020

The State of Telangana represented by Sub Name complainant Inspectorof Police, PS Dasturabad.

1) Sayyed AkbarS/oNizam, aged 34 years, Name and descriptionof the Occ: Coolie, R/o Shantinagar, Khanapur town.

appellants/accused

Sharooq, S/oNabisha,

SK Mahaboob@ 2) aged32years,Occ: Coolie, R/o Vellulla village of Metpally mandal.

In the result,the accused No.1 and 2 are Result of the lower court theoffencepunishable foundfor guilty andtheyare and380IPC U/sec.457 accordingly convicted U/sec.241 CrPC and 8 months under sentenced to undergoSI for section457 and 9 months and to pay fine of for two Rs.100/- under both counts,IDSI months. The appealispartly allowed by modifying Whether confirmed, revised to runconcurrently with the thesentence andif modified* sentenceof rest of other four CCs ie., CC

and

768/2019 824/2019 Nos.689/2019, 825/2019in Criminal appeals i.e., 18, 20 to 22 file of this court.The of2020 on the Adilabadis DistrictJail, Superintendent, theappellants/accused directedtorelease No.1 and2 forthwith in the above said cases if they arenot required in any other case.

as

|BailBond| |_HearingJudgment FilingNotice Presentation

fmeee_|.11.1.2021121.2021

20.5.2020 ||| =<20.5.2020

CM. pipjebed heard on11.1 2021 in the presence

agateOY,forae rasusetottathaaand havinghan,

illyy

Stateand of Sri DJagent®ws

F

Sa

Advocatefor appellant (Wt ite

andoe

an4}delivered the following

nna

stoodfor consideration till this day, this fee

UDGMENT

int againstthe Thiscriminal appeal is filed by the appellant/complait 1 iciistrateof the learned Additional Judicial Magisiti judgmentof conviction passed by Vv)ry" J ictingthe

dated24.2.2020convicting

First Class,NirmalinC.C.No.690/2019,

appellantsfor the offences under sections 457 and 380 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo SI for 8 months under section 457 IPC and 9 months under section 380 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.200/- under both the counts, IDSI for two months and both the sentences shall run concurrently.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on the intervening night of 26/27-7- 2017 at Buthkur village, accused No.1 and 2 tresspassed into a temple by broke

Opening the lock and door, opened the Hundi and committed theft of cash and silver and thus committed the offences under sections 457 and 380 of 112.6)

Crt. Appeal No.19/20203 -

v

appellants admitted theguilt.He also submitted that the appellants were convicted in five cases on the same day and hence serving of sentence in one caseisenough in all five cases and they need not to serve sentence in all five cases as sentencedabove. It is alsosubmitted that the appellants paid total fine amount in the lower court and prayed to allow the appeal.

5.Heard both sides.

6.Now, the point that arose for determination is:

Whether all the sentences imposed in impugned judgments in CC Nos.689/2019, 690/2019, 768/2019 824/2019 and 825/2019 dt.24.2.2020 shall run concurrently?

7.Perusal of record shows that in lower court the appellants were voluntarilyadmitted their guilt,on which the lower court convicted and sentenced them to undergo SI for 8 months under section 457 IPC and 9 months under section 380 IPC and also to pay fine of Rs.200/- under both the counts, in default of payment of fine, they shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months and both the sentences shall run concurrently.

8.Here it is pertinent to note that the appellants/accused No.1 and 2 herein

cases ie

were convictedin fiveCC Nos.689/2019,690/2019,768/2019 824/2019 and825/2019 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Nirmal on 24.2.2020 and in all the above cases they were sentenced as stated above.

9.Here is the question that can sentences pronounced in different cases run concurrently? The Gujarath High Court in a case of Kapadia stated that the lower court had usedits discretion to not allow the sentences to run concurrently.TheHigh Court said the extraordinary power of the court under 4 ppeal N0.1s/2b20' remedyingaflagrant abuse by a subordinate court of its powers.” Therefore, “the refusal of the court below to direct the sentences torunconcurrently with ” R the previous sentence cannotbe saidtohave caused any miscarriageof justice.”

In another case ofGopal Vinayak Godse Vs. State of Maharashtra, 10.

Supreme Court observed that “a sentence of imprisonment for life must prima facie be treated as a sentenceofimprisonmentfor the whole of the remaining periodof the convicted persons natural life unless commuted or remitted.” The court also cited Section 427(2) of CrPC whichsays,“when a person already sentencedconvictionto lifetermisonasubsequent undergoinga imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall

It allowed Ramaiah’s petition runconcurrently with such previous sentence.”

saying his two sentences would run concurrently.

A combined readingof theprovisions embodied in Sections 31(1), 427 11.

and 428 ofCrPCand Section 64 of IPC gives out a completed scheme of calculatingtheperiodof imprisonment passed as sentence , the ordinary rule being that the sentences awarded shall run consequently, unless the court directs that the sentences passed,in more than one case, shall run concurrently.

On theee givenby the appellants to the Secretary,

DLSA., 12.

District Jail, Adilabad has given explanation Adilabad, the Superintendent, stating that the Hon'ble Magistrate has given the remand period by giving set off and to run the sentences concurrently in each CC separately, hence all the above five sentences are in process to complete as per 427 CrPC.

Here, the appellants/accusedNo.1 and 2 were convicted and sentenced 13.

asesand serving sentence from 24.2.2020 i.e., more than imposed

Crk. AppealNo.19/20205

tgy

iteagainst them. However, if all the five sentences run consecutively, it

will amount to 9 months X 5 i.e., three years nine months. It is the contention oftheappellantsthat assuming that they willbe given the benefit of concurrentlyin all five cases, they opted for the admissions.Anyhow the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no objection to give concurrently finding and release the appellants. InVKBanselVs. State of Haryana,it was held generally sentences should run consequently (that is one after another, but court has the discretion to direct sentences to run concurrently).Therefore, in view of the above discussion and law position, plea of the accused and as discussed above, the sentences imposed against the appellants/accusedNo.1 and 2 in all the above said five cases shall run concurrently.

IN THE RESULT, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the sentence to run concurrently with the sentence of rest of other four CCs i.e, CC

Nos.689/2019,768/2019,824/2019 and 825/2019 in Criminal appeals i.e., 18 and 20 to 22 of 2020 on the file of this court.The Superintendent, District Jail,

Adilabad is directed to release the appellants/accused No.1 and 2 forthwith in the above said cases if they are not required in any other case.

Typedtomy dictation and after correction pronounced by me in open court on is the 12 day ofJanuary, 2021.

J

ADILABAD.

FAC: VII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS

JUDGE (FTC), NIRMAL.