The High Court dismissed a criminal original petition where the petitioner sought to run sentences concurrently under Section 482 Cr.P.C., relying on K.Arasan. The Court held the petitioner was not a fit case due to the identical nature of offences and the trial court's conscious decision to decline the plea.
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.
Crl.O.P.No.22298 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 03.10.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.O.P.No.22298 of 2023
N.Prakash
... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The State Rep. by its Inspector of Police, E1- Singanallur Police Station, Coimbatore District- 641 005.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Coimbatore District -641 005. ...Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the petitioner to undergo sentences in concurrent manner relating to the punishment imposed as against the Petitioner made in C.C. No.498 of 2020 dated 07.02.2023 and C.C. No.499 of 2020 dated 07.02.2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner : Ms.B.Aparna
For Respondents : Mr.S.Udayakumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioner is the first accused in C.C. No.498 of 2020 and C.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis No.499 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III,
Page No.1/4
Crl.O.P.No.22298 of 2023
Coimbatore. He along with three others were tried for offence under Sections 120(b), 379 r/w 34 of IPC. The 4th accused was tried for offence under Sections 120(b), 379, 411 and 414 r/w 34 of IPC. In both the cases, the accused pleaded
guilty and the trial Court imposed Rigorous Imprisonment for Eight months for offence under Section 120(b) of IPC and Eight months Rigorous Imprisonment for offence under Section 379 r/w 34 of IPC. The period of sentence ordered to run concurrently for both the offences. Similar sentence was imposed in C.C. No.499 of 2020 and the judgment was pronounced on 07.02.2023.
Page No.2/4
Crl.O.P.No.22298 of 2023
others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2012 (6) CTC 510) submitted that the inherent power of the High Court for granting relief under Section 427 (1) of Cr.P.C is permissible.
the petitioner herein had an antecedent and theft cases have also been registered against him. Being a habitual offender, the benefit under Section 427 (1) of Cr.P.C. need not be extended to him.
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the State.
Page No.3/4
Crl.O.P.No.22298 of 2023
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
imposed by the trial Court, this Court finds that it is not a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and order concurrent running of sentence in two Calendar Cases which are identical in nature.
03.10.2023
Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No rkp To
Crl.O.P.No.22298 of 2023
Page No.4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to order concurrent running of sentences in identical nature cases where the trial court declined the plea.
Whether the petitioner is a fit case for the benefit of concurrent sentencing under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. given the nature of offence and prior record.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K.Arasan and others Vs. State of Tamil NaduRelied on¶27
K.Arasan and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2012 (6) CTC 510)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
N.Prakash
State Rep. by its Inspector of Police, E1- Singanallur Police Station, Coimbatore District
Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Coimbatore District
G.JAYACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
