In this criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, the court considered a request to run three sentences concurrently for offences of theft. The bench declined to exercise its inherent powers to order concurrent execution, citing the accused's extensive pending criminal liabilities and lack of prospect for reformation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
: 1 :
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5347 OF 2019
BETWEEN
K Vijayasimha @ Vijaya @ Vijayakumar S/o Gururaj, Aged about 41 years R/at No.394, 5th Cross Vidyamanagara, Andrahalli Main Road Vishwaneedam Post, Byadarahalli Bengaluru – 560 091.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. Dilraj Jude Rohit Sequeira, Advocate for Smt. Lubna H.S - Advocate)
AND
... Respondents
(By Sri Rahul Rai .K, HCGP for R-1; R-2 Served - unrepresented)
: 2 :
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to allow the application and order of three sentences to run concurrently, in C.C.No.24983/2017, C.C.No.25693/2017 and C.C.No.25691/2017 under Sections 454 and 380 of IPC for a period of 03 years each by the Court of VIII-Addl. CMM, Bangalore.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission through video conference, this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Dilraj Jude
Rohit Sequeira, appears through video conferencing.
C.C.No.25691/2017. But all these cases have been ended
in conviction for offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC, 1860 and the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Section 454 of IPC and undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Section 380 of the IPC, which two sentences were to run concurrently. The same sentence has been
: 3 :
imposed by the Trial Court in respect of each of the cases in C.C.No.24983/2017, C.C.No.25693/2017 and C.C.No.25691/2017, which amounts to a total of nine years. It is contended that this nine years service of sentence is not in accordance with certain provisions of the Cr.P.C. and even not in accordance with some judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by referring to Ramayana and also reformation of the convicted accused and also criminal justice delivery system.
: 4 :
convicted accused in the aforesaid three cases, has pleaded guilty.
“375. No appeal in certain cases when accused pleads guilty.-- Notwithstanding anything contained in section 374, where an accused person has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on such plea, there shall be no appeal,-
(a) if the conviction is by a High Court;
or
(b) if the conviction is by a Court of Session, Metropolitan Magistrate or Magistrate of the first or second class, except as to the extent or legality of the sentence.”
this petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking an order of the three sentences to run
: 5 :
concurrently. This submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is placed on record.
: 6 :
Hanumanthanagar P.S. and Vyalikaval P.S. respectively and two cases are pending before the Court of the XXIV ACMM, Bengaluru and third case is pending before the Court of the VIII ACMM, Bengaluru. In all the above mentioned petitions, bail has been granted in favour of the petitioner.
: 7 :
offences. But at this juncture, though the learned counsel for the petitioner has facilitated a number of citations in support of his contention for seeking service of sentence in respect of the three cases in C.C.No.24983/2017, C.C.No.25693/2017 and C.C.No.25691/2017 to run concurrently, but for the present, the petitioner / accused is not deserving for the relief sought for even in view of Section 427 Cr.P.C. even referring to Ramayana relating to reformation of this accused. It cannot be accepted that this accused would reform from the alleged offences, in view of the same modus operandi adopted by him in all the cases in lurking and trespassing and thereafter committing theft. Therefore, it is not desirable to dwell into exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
: 8 :
but it should be equally in favour of the complainant as well.
Consequently, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
KS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to order concurrent running of sentences for similar theft offences committed by an accused involved in multiple pending ca
Whether the accused is deserving of relief regarding concurrent sentence execution given his modus operandi and pending charges in other cases.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
K Vijayasimha @ Vijaya @ Vijayakumar
State of Karnataka
Shabeer Ahmad
K. Somashekar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
