The High Court rejected the petitioner's prayer to run sentences concurrently for convictions in C.C.No.725 of 2008 and S.C.No.5 of 2010. Relying on established law, the Court held Section 427 Cr.P.C. applies only to transactions within a single case. Petitioner imprisoned for distinct offences.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
TUESDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 20TH BHADRA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 4796 of 2014
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 456/2011 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-I,KOTTAYAM DATED 03-12-2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 5/2010 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 10-01-2011
PETITIONER/S:
PALANIVELU, C.NO.7729, CENTRAL PRISON, VIYYUR.
BY ADV. SMT.SHERLYMOL THOMAS
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
SR.PP.SRI.ALEX M THOMBRA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 4796 of 2014 2
ORDER
In C.C.No.725 of 2008 on the file of the JFCM
Court, Vaikom the petitioner was convicted of the offences under Sections 392 and 457 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for
each of the offences. Further they were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section 457 IPC and Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 392 IPC. Default sentences also were imposed. He
was convicted in SC No.5 of 2010 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Pathanamthitta for the offences under Sections 324, 397, 457 and 461 r/w Section 34 IPC. For the offence under Section 324 IPC he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each, for the offence under Section 397 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and for the offence under Section 457 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. In
addition to that for the offence under Section 397
IPC he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/also. Default sentence also was awarded. The prayer in this Crl. M.C is to issue a direction that the
Crl.MC.No. 4796 of 2014 3
sentences in the two cases shall run concurrently.
and the learned Public Prosecutor.
petitioner is undergoing imprisonment in the two cases. The occurrence in SC No.5 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta took
place on 12.4.2006, and the occurrence in C.C.No.725 of 2008 on the file of the JFCM Court, Vaikom took place on 16.4.2007. It is now well settled that Section 427 Cr.P.C can be invoked only when the two cases arose from a single transaction. This has been
the consistent view of the Supreme Court. The decision in O.M.Cherian Alias Thankachan vs. State of
Kerala and Others (2015 (2) SCC 501) is one of the
latest decisions. The petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Section 427 Cr.P.C.
In the result, this Crl. M.C is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE
pm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 427 Cr.P.C. can be invoked for sentences arising from two different occurrences.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to redeem concurrent sentences for offences in distinct cases.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
O.M.Cherian Alias Thankachan vs. State of KeralaApplied¶30
_O.M.Cherian Alias Thankachan vs. State of Kerala and Others (2015 (2) SCC 501)_ · Who else cites this
PALANIVELU
STATE OF KERALA
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
