Allowed

Syed Irshad S/O. Syed Iqbal v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Dec 2021REVN/259/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of multiple criminal revision applications. The court held that since the applicant had served nearly the entire sentence, it was appropriate to direct that the sentences for various cases run concurrently under Section 427 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Sentences to be undergone in R.C.C. Nos. 184 of 2010, 205 of 2009, 39 of 2010 and 159 of 2010 concurrently.

Syed Irshad S/O. Syed Iqbal Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

{1} CRI RA 259 OF 2019 & ORS

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

901 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.259 OF 2019

¶4

. Syed Irshad s/o. Syed Iqbal Age : 30 years, Occu.: Labour, R/o. Kogalli, Bhokar, Tal. Bhokar, Dist.Nanded. ..Applicant VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through The Police Inspector, Bhokar Police Station, Bhokar, Tal. Bhokar, Dist.Nanded. 2. Rajeshwar G.Panchal (Complainant) Age: 30 years, Occu.: Advocate, R/o. Gandhinagar, Bhokar, Tal.Bhokar, Dist.Nanded. ..Respondents ... 928 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.97 OF 2021 WITH APPLN/1067/2021 IN REVN/97/2021 . Syed Irshad s/o. Syed Iqbal Age : 40 years, Occu.: Labour, R/o. Kogalli, Bhokar, Tal. Bhokar, Dist.Nanded. ..Applicant VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station, Bhokar Dist.Nanded. 2. Vinod Pundlikrao Chinchalkar Age: 40 years, Occu.: Business, R/o. Bhokar, Tal.Bhokar, Dist.Nanded. ..Respondents ...

¶5

929 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.98 OF 2021 WITH APPLN/1070/2021 IN REVN/98/2021

¶6

. Syed Irshad s/o. Syed Iqbal Age : 40 years, Occu.: Labour,

¶7

	{2} CRI RA 259 OF 2019 & ORS R/o. Kogalli, Bhokar, Tal. Bhokar, Dist.Nanded. ..Applicant
1.	VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station, Bhokar Dist.Nanded.
2.	Satish Balajirao Kadam Age: 42 years, Occu.: Business, R/o. Matual, Tal.Bhokar, Dist.Nanded. ..Respondents ...
9 .	30 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.99 OF 2021 WITH APPLN/1072/2021 IN REVN/99/2021 Syed Irshad s/o. Syed Iqbal Age : 40 years, Occu.: Labour, R/o. Kogalli, Bhokar, Tal. Bhokar, Dist.Nanded. ..Applicant
1.	VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station, Bhokar Dist.Nanded.
2.	Satish Mujahid Shaikh Hamid Age: 40 years, Occu.: Business, R/o. Chikalwadi, Bhokar, Tal.Bhokar, Dist.Nanded. ..Respondents ... Advocate for Applicant : Smt. Anuradha S. Mantri APP for Respondent No.1 : Shri S.W.Munde and Shri G.O.Wattamwar in respective matters. Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Shri S.A. Kulkarni ….
	CORAM : M.G.SEWLIKAR, J.

¶8

DATE: 22^nd December, 2021

¶9

{3} CRI RA 259 OF 2019 & ORS

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

¶11

These revision applications are preferred by the applicant accused against decision in R.C.C. Nos.205 of 2009, 184 of 2010, 39 of 2010 and 159 of 2010. In R.C.C. No.205 of 2009, applicant is sentenced to sufer rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.1,000/-0 in default to sufer rigorous imprisonment for one month. In R.C.C. No.184 of 2010, applicant is sentenced to sufer rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.1,000/-0 in default to sufer rigorous imprisonment for one month. In R.C.C. No.39 of 2010, applicant is sentenced to sufer rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.500/-0 in default to sufer rigorous imprisonment for one month. In R.C.C. No.159 of 2010, applicant is sentenced to sufer rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.1,000/-0 in default to sufer rigorous imprisonment for one month. The learned trial Court directed the sentence of imprisonment to be sufered in all these cases consecutively.

¶12

Applicant has preferred these revision applications contending that in terms of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, applicant ought to have been directed to sufer imprisonment in all these cases concurrently.

¶13

{4} CRI RA 259 OF 2019 & ORS

¶14

Smt.A.S.Mantri, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in terms of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applicant ought to have been directed to sufer sentence of imprisonment concurrently. She submits that applicant is in jail since 25^th September, 2009 in R.C.C. No.205 of 2009. In R.C.C. No.184 of 2010, he is behind bars from 22^nd October, 2010. In R.C.C. No.39 of 2010, applicant is behind bars since 21^st February, 2010 and in R.C.C. No.159 of 2010, applicant is released on bail. Smt.Mantri, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has sufered almost entire sentence. She submits that amount of fine has been deposited.

¶15

Report from the Superintendent of Central Prison, Nashik has been called. The said report states that applicant would be released on 20^th March, 2022 after undergoing entire sentence.

¶16

Smt.Mantri, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vicky @ Vikas Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) in Criminal Appeal No.208 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.4201 of 2019). In the case of Vicky @ Vikas (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court made following observations:

¶17

{5} CRI RA 259 OF 2019 & ORS

¶18

15. Further, in the case of Anil Kumar V. State of Punjab (2017) 5 SCC 53, it was held by this Court that “in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 427, if a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such subsequent term of imprisonment would normally commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he was previously sentenced. Only in appropriate cases, considering the facts of the case, the Court can make the sentence run concurrently with an earlier sentence imposed. The investiture of such discretion, presupposes that such discretion be exercised by the Court on sound judicial principles and not in a mechanical manner. Whether or not the discretion is to be exercised in directing sentences to run concurrently would depend upon the nature of the offence/offences and the facts and circumstances of each case.”

¶19

In the case at hand, admittedly, applicant has undergone almost full term of sentence. He would be set free on 20^th March, 2022. Having regard to this, I deem it appropriate to give benefit of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the applicant. In view of this, following order is passed:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(i) Applicant to undergo sentence in R.C.C. Nos.184 of 2010, 205 of 2009 with 39 of 2010 and 159 of 2010 concurrently.

¶22

{6} CRI RA 259 OF 2019 & ORS

¶23

(ii) Fees of learned counsel appointed to represent respondent No.2 is quantified at Rs.5,000/-0. It is to be paid through the High Court Legal Services Authority, Sub-0 Committee, Aurangabad.

¶24

(iii) All the Revision Applications are disposed of.

¶25

(iv) All interim orders stand vacated.

¶26

(v) Pending Criminal Applications are also disposed of.

¶27

( M.G.SEWLIKAR ) JUDGE

¶28

SPT

Syed Irshad S/O. Syed Iqbal v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Irshad S/O. Syed Iqbal v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhuri W/O. Bhagwant Pandge Vs Bhagwant Narsingrao Pandge

Ajay Mirilal Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Parmeshwar Muktiram Dhage Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Syed Irshad Syed Iqbal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Syed Irshad Syed Iqbal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Syed Irshad Syed Iqbal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another