Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Nagappa Vyankappa Sali - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 582 of 1930
Judge
Reported in(1931)33BOMLR1163
AppellantEmperor
RespondentNagappa Vyankappa Sali
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 397- concurrent sentences-high court-appeal. ;the high court, as a court of appeal, has power, under section 397 of the criminal procedure code, to direct separate sentences of separate trials to run concurrently. ;emperor v. sis bam (1920) i.l.r. 51 all. 888, followed. ;g.n. thakor, with g.b. chitale and t.n. vdavalkar, for accused nos. 6 and 12. - .....disturbances, mr. chitale on their behalf applies to us under the provisions of section 397, criminal procedure code, to make their sentences in the present case of seven years' rigorous imprisonment each to run concurrently with their sentences in the other cases of four years' and two years' rigorous imprisonment respectively. the government pleader has contended that we have no power as a court of appeal to make an order under section 397, and that the application should have been made to the sessions court at the time of passing the sentences as that was the only competent court which could make the order asked for. under section 397 sentences passed under separate trials or in the same trial on separate charges are not deemed to be concurrent unless the court directs that the.....
Judgment:

Mirza, J.

1. [His Lordship after dealing with the merits of the appeal proceeded.] It appears that accused Nos. 6 and 12 are undergoing sentences of four years' and two years' rigorous imprisonment respectively in connection with their convictions in other trials for similar offences connected with the Sholapur disturbances, Mr. Chitale on their behalf applies to us under the provisions of Section 397, Criminal Procedure Code, to make their sentences in the present case of seven years' rigorous imprisonment each to run concurrently with their sentences in the other cases of four years' and two years' rigorous imprisonment respectively. The Government Pleader has contended that we have no power as a Court of appeal to make an order under Section 397, and that the application should have been made to the Sessions Court at the time of passing the sentences as that was the only competent Court which could make the order asked for. Under Section 397 sentences passed under separate trials or in the same trial on separate charges are not deemed to be concurrent unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. The learned Government Pleader has urged that by 'the Court' in this section is meant the Court which originally passes the sentence. Reliance is placed in support of this argument upon the terms of Section 106, Criminal Procedure Code, where by sub-Section (3) it is expressly provided that an order under that section may also be made by an appellate Court or by the High Court when exercising its powers of revision. In Emperor v. Sis Ram (1929) I.L.R. 51 All. 888, 889 the Allahabad High Court has held that the High Court has power under Section 397 to direct separate sentences of separate trials to run concurrently. We agree with that ruling. The terms of Section 423 and of Section 561A, Criminal Procedure Code, seem to us to be wide enough to enable us to make an order of the kind applied for.

Baker J.

2. [His Lordship delivered a concurring judgment dealing with the merits of the appeal and concluded.] The sentences passed by the Additional Sessions Judge should be confirmed with a modification in the case of accused Nos. 6 and 12, who are undergoing sentences of four years and two years respectively for similar offences-the sentences in their case should be concurrent with those sentences under Section 397, Criminal Procedure Code.


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