Skip to content


Mullapudi Venkanna Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Misc. Petn. No. 535 of 1964
Judge
Reported inAIR1964AP449; 1964CriLJ377
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 369, 397(1), 435 and 561A
AppellantMullapudi Venkanna
RespondentThe State of Andhra Pradesh
Appellant AdvocateAdavi Ramarao, ;K. Nagaraja Rao and ;A.V. Radhakrishna, Advs.
Respondent AdvocatePublic Prosecutor
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
criminal - high court's power - sections 369, 397 (1), 435 and 561-a of criminal procedure code, 1898 - wide power conferred upon high court to consider propriety of sentence passed by lower court - section 397 (1) confers power upon high court to pass orders to the effect that sentences to run concurrently against same accused - order passed to be a separate order and complete by itself. - .....petition is filed by mr. adavi rama rao, the learned counsel praying that this court may order the sentence passed in s. c. no. 2/61 on the file of the assistant sessions judge, gudivada to run concurrently with that passed in s c. no. 26/57 on the file of the assistant sessions judge, eluru. the learned counsel appearing for the public prosecutor relied on in re, nachimuthu, air 1958 mad 452 and submits that the high court has no power to review the orders passed by the trial court or appellate court and the order to make the sentences run concurrently cannot be passed when there is no appeal pending before the high court. but in my opinion, the high court has wide powers under section 485, criminal procedure code and it can always consider the propriety of a sentence recorded by the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Mohamed Mirza, J.

1. This petition is filed by Mr. Adavi Rama Rao, the learned Counsel praying that this Court may order the sentence passed in S. C. No. 2/61 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudivada to run concurrently with that passed in S C. No. 26/57 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Eluru. The learned Counsel appearing for the Public Prosecutor relied on In re, Nachimuthu, AIR 1958 Mad 452 and submits that the High Court has no power to review the orders passed by the trial Court or appellate Court and the order to make the sentences run concurrently cannot be passed when there is no appeal pending before the High Court. But in my opinion, the High Court has wide powers under Section 485, Criminal Procedure Code and it can always consider the propriety of a sentence recorded by the lower Courts and in case it feels that the sentence is inappropriate it cart always correct it. The power to order the sentences to run concurrently is provided under Section 397(1) Criminal Procedure Code, and the Court can always consider the feasibility of ordering the sentences to run concurrently. Thus the High Court cannot be in a worse position than the trial Court or the lower Appellate Court to exercise that power and for this purpose I think the provisions of Section 561-A can always be invoked.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred me to a decision of the Patna High Court in Baijnath v. State, AIR 1901 Put 138 wherein it has been laid down that a petition of this type does not raise any question either of altering or reviewing the judgment of the High Court and overriding the specific provisions of Section 369 Criminal Procedure Code because the judgment will stand as it is and the order passed under Section 561-A would be a separate order and complete by itself. T entirely agree with the view expressed in the Patna case.

3. In the result, I allow the petition and order that the sentence passed in S. C. 2/61 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudivada shall run concurrently with the sentence passed in S.C. 26/57 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Eluru.


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