Skip to content


Laisram Pishak Singh Vs. Manipur Administration - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject;Criminal
CourtGuwahati High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantLaisram Pishak Singh
RespondentManipur Administration
Excerpt:
- - sentenced him have failed to indicate in their judgments whether the sentences should run concurrently or consecutively, the effect will be that he will have to undergo a total period of imprisonment of 56 years in all the 8 cases, that this is a very great :hardship on him and that this court should, therefore, direct that the sentences should run concurrently instead of consecutively. t.n.r. tirumalpad, j.c.1. laisram pishak singh, convict, who has been sentenced by the additional sessions judges (i) and (ii), to various terms of imprisonment in 8 sessions cases, has filed this application from prison stating that as the sessions judges, who. sentenced him have failed to indicate in their judgments whether the sentences should run concurrently or consecutively, the effect will be that he will have to undergo a total period of imprisonment of 56 years in all the 8 cases, that this is a very great : hardship on him and that this court should, therefore, direct that the sentences should run concurrently instead of consecutively.2. i have perused the records in the 8 sessions cases and i find the situation to be as follows:the petitioner was sentenced by additional.....
Judgment:

T.N.R. Tirumalpad, J.C.

1. Laisram Pishak Singh, convict, who has been sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judges (I) and (II), to various terms of imprisonment in 8 Sessions Cases, has filed this application from prison stating that as the Sessions Judges, who. sentenced him have failed to indicate in their judgments whether the sentences should run concurrently or consecutively, the effect will be that he will have to undergo a total period of imprisonment of 56 years in all the 8 cases, that this is a very great : hardship on him and that this Court should, therefore, direct that the sentences should run concurrently instead of consecutively.

2. I have perused the records in the 8 Sessions Cases and I find the situation to be as follows:

The petitioner was sentenced by Additional Sessions Judge (II) in Sessions Trial No. 6/60 on 28-4-1960 to 5 years' R.I. and 7 years' R.I., the said sentences to run concurrently. Next he was sentenced by the same Judge on 29-8-1960 in Sessions Trial No. 34/14/1959/14/1960 to 7 years' R.I. and in the judgment it was stated that the sentence was to be served forthwith, which would mean that the sentence would take effect from the date when it was passed or in other words, that it. should run concurrently with the previous sentences.

On the same date, the Additional Sessions Judge (I) sentenced him to 7 years' R.I. in Sessions Trial No. 12/11/8/1960, In the judgment it is not indicated whether the sentence should run concurrently or consecutively with the previous sentences. St is clear that the judge did not know of the existence of the other two sentences.

3. Again, on 6-9-1960, the petitioner was sentenced to 7 years' R.I. in Sessions Trial No. 6/2/ 1960 by the Additional Sessions Judge (II) and in this again it was stated that the sentence should be served forthwith. The next sentence was in Sessions Trial No. 28/9/59/13/60, again by Additional Sessions Judge (II) on 16-11-1960 for a period of 7 years in which it was stated that the sentence was to be served forthwith and this was made explicit by stating that this sentence was to run to currently with any other sentence that the petitioner might be serving. Again, on 19-1-1961, he was sentenced in Sessions Trial No., 27-19 of 1960 by Additional Sessions judge (II) to 5 years' R.I' in which it was stated that the sentence shall be served forthwith, that is, concurrently along with any other sentence he was then serving. The next sentence was in Sessions Trial No. 28/16/60 by Additional Sessions Judge (I) on 22-3-1961 of 7 years' R.I. in which there was no mention whether the sentence was to run concurrently or consecutively. The 8th sentence was in Sessions Trial No. 5/61 again by Additional Sessions Judge (1) on 23-9-1961 for 7 years' R.I. in which again there is no mention as to whether it is concurrent or consecutive with the previous sentences. It is again clear that the Additional Sessions Judge (I) did not know of the existence of the earlier sentence.

4. All the sentences were under Sections 394/397 or 398 Indian Penal Code for a series of robberies or dacoities committed by this petitioner. It 5 fairly clear from the judgments of the Additional Sessions Judge (II) in 5 of the 8 cases that he has directed that the sentences should run concurrently with the previous sentences.

The difficulty is about the 3 sentences passed in 3 Sessions Cases by Additional Sessions Judge (I) in which there is no direction either way. In such eases, Section, 397 Criminal Procedure Code will normally come into play. According to that section, when a person already undergoing a sentence at imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such imprisonment 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. Thus, as the Additional Sessions Judge (I) has not indicated feat the subsequent sentences should run concurrently with the previous sentences they should run consecutively. But in order that Section 397 should apply, the Court which passed the subsequent sentence or sentences must have been aware that there waif a previous sentence and knowing that he refused to direct that the subsequent sentences shall ran concurrently. But a perusal of the 3 judgments of Additional Sessions Judge (I), showed that he was not aware of the previous sentences against he petitioner. In such a case, it cannot be con-sinded that the Court had applied its mind to the consion of Section 397 and has consciously and deliberately refused to give the direction that the sentence should run concurrently.

Normally, it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor in such cases to inform the Court at the time of passing the sentence about the previous sentence or sentences which the person is undergoing. It is clear in the present cases that the Public Prosecutor has not discharged this duty of informing the Court and that the Court could not, therefore, give any direction in the matter. Evidently, the Additional Sessions Judge (II), who dealt with 5 of the cases knew of the previous sentences passed by him and hence he gave the necessary direction that the subsequent sentences should run concurrently with the previous sentences.

5. This is therefore a fit case where this Court should interfere and direct that the 3 sentences passed by Additional Sessions Judge (I) in Sessions Trial No. 12/11/8 of 1960, 28/16/60 of 1960 and 5 of 1961 should also run concurrently with the previous sentences. It is finally ordered that all the 8 sentences passed in the 8 Sessions Cases shall run concurrently, i.e., from the respective dates of the sentences and not from the dates of expiration of the previous sentences. Otherwise the petitioner, who is a young man and who has a chance of reforming himself in Jail will have to pass his entire life in prison which seems to be quite unnecessary in the interest of justice.

6. Ordered accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //