Skip to content


The State of Karnataka Vs. Mahadevappa Siddaramappa Bokkasad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1976CriLJ808
AppellantThe State of Karnataka
RespondentMahadevappa Siddaramappa Bokkasad
Excerpt:
..... - the ii additional sessions judge sent his reply on 26-5-1975 stating that it was specifically and clearly noted in the warrant of commitment that the sentence passed on the prisoner was to be treated as consecutive. it is rather strange that in spite of this provision being brought to the notice of th& learned ii additional sessions judge, by the superintendent of central prison, belgaum, the it additional sessions judge did not even consider it proper to look into the provision and try to do whatever was possible for him to do, but wrote a letter on 26-5-1975 intimating the superintendent of central prison, belgaum, that it has been specifically and clearly noted in the warrant of commitment, thereby indicating that no clarification was necessary as sought for by the..........may be narrated as follows:the prisoner in question is mahadevappa sidramappa bokkasad undergoing imprisonment in central prison, belgaum. he was on 31-7-1963, convicted by the i additional sessions judge, dharwar, in sessions case no. 12 of 1963 for having committed an offence punishable under section 302, i. p. c, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. he was again tried by the ii additional sessions judge, belgaum, in sessions case no. 145 of 1974 for having committed an offence punishable under section 307, i. p.c. the ii additional sessions judge, belgaum, pronounced his judgment on 21-12-1974 convicting him for the said offence and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year. he further directed as follows:the sentence shall commence after the convict serves out.....
Judgment:
ORDER

M.S. Nesargi, J.

1. This revision petition has been registered suo motu in exercise of the powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The few facts necessary to understand the question involved may be narrated as follows:

The prisoner in question is Mahadevappa Sidramappa Bokkasad undergoing imprisonment in Central Prison, Belgaum. He was on 31-7-1963, convicted by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwar, in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1963 for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302, I. P. C, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He was again tried by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in Sessions Case No. 145 of 1974 for having committed an offence punishable under Section 307, I. P.C. The II Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, pronounced his Judgment on 21-12-1974 convicting him for the said offence and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year. He further directed as follows:

The sentence shall commence after the convict serves out the sentence which he is undergoing.

The warrant of commitment was issued on 21-12-1974 by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, to the Central Prison, Belgaum. On 15/16-5-1975 Sri M. Hanumanthappa, B.Sc. B.L., Senior Superintendent of Central Prison, Belgaum, wrote a Demi Official letter to the II Additional Sessions Judge, Belguam requesting the II Additional Sessions Judge to clarify the point in regard to the direction that the sentence shall commence after the convict serves out the sentence which he was already undergoing, in view of the provision in Section 427(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The II Additional Sessions Judge sent his reply on 26-5-1975 stating that it was specifically and clearly noted in the warrant of commitment that the sentence passed on the prisoner was to be treated as consecutive. The matter did not rest there. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Belgaum, appears to have corresponded with the Inspector General of Prisons who, in turn, brought the matter to the notice of this Court. It was thereafter that the records were called for and action was taken suo motu.

3. Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the sentence to be passed on offenders already sentenced for another offence. Sub-section (2) of the said section reads as follows:

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.

(Underlining is mine)

The meaning of fehe above provision is absolutely plain. The law lays down that under the circumstances in this matter the subsequent sentence has to run concurrently. Hence the II Additional Sessions Judge has acted beyond his powers in directing that the subsequent sentence shall run consecutively.

It is rather strange that in spite of this provision being brought to the notice of th& Learned II Additional Sessions Judge, by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Belgaum, the IT Additional Sessions Judge did not even consider it proper to look into the provision and try to do whatever was possible for him to do, but wrote a letter on 26-5-1975 intimating the Superintendent of Central Prison, Belgaum, that it has been specifically and clearly noted in the warrant of commitment, thereby indicating that no clarification was necessary as sought for by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Belgaum.

4. In view of the foregoing, I allow this revision petition, set aside the direction passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum in Sessions Case No, 145 of 1974 in regard to the operation of the sentence and direct that the sentence passed on Mahadevappa Sidramappa Bokkasad by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in Sessions Case No. 145 of 1974 shall run concurrently with the sentence passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwar, in Sessions Case No 12 of 1963 which he is already undergoing.


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