In criminal appeals disposed of jointly, the High Court upheld the convictions and sentences for offences under the NDPS Act. It directed that the three consecutive 10-year sentences be made to run concurrently, citing the excessive aggregate term and relying on prior High Court precedent.
Sentences in the three FIRs directed to run concurrently.
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. Appeal No. 1575-SB of 2006 and Crl. Appeal No. 2499-SB of 2007
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No. 1575-SB of 2006 Date of Decision: November 22, 2010
Darshan Singh ........Appellant Versus State of Punjab ........Respondent And
Crl. Appeal No. 2499-SB of 2007
Darshan Singh ........Appellant Versus State of Punjab ........Respondent ******
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present : Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. J.S. Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.
SABINA, J.
Vide this order both the above mentioned appeals would be disposed of.
Appellant Darshan Singh was tried for an offence in FIR No.4 dated 10.1.1997, registered at Police Station Mehna under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the Act') and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac by the Judge Special Court, Moga vide judgment and order dated 26.7.2006. Aggrieved by the same, appellant Darshan Singh has
Crl. Appeal No. 1575-SB of 2006 and Crl. Appeal No. 2499-SB of 2007
2
filed Criminal Appeal No.1575-SB of 2006. Appellant Darshan Singh was also tried for an offence in FIR No.25 dated 11.2.2001, registered at Police Station Haibowal, under Section 15 of the Act and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac vide judgement/order dated 26.11.2007 by Judge Special Court, Ludhiana. Aggrieved by the same, appellant Darshan Singh has filed Criminal Appeal No.2499-SB of 2007. Appellant Darshan Sigh was also tried for an offence in FIR No.254 dated 28.7.1994, registered at Police Station Sadar, under Section 15 of the Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac by Judge Special Court, Ludhiana vide judgment/order dated 25.10.2001. Appeal filed by the appellant Darshan Singh against the said judgment has since been dismissed by this Court.
Heard.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 15 of the Act but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment of the appellant in all three cases be ordered to run currently. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of “Pritam Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2007 (4) RCR (Criminal) 712”, wherein it was held as under :-
“19. Now examining the facts and circumstances of the present case on the parameters as laid down by the Apex Court in Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti's case (supra) and the aforesaid principles laid down by us, it is observed that the
Crl. Appeal No. 1575-SB of 2006 and Crl. Appeal No. 2499-SB of 2007
3
circumstances which compel us to make a view in favour of the accused are that the accused has already been undergoing sentence of 10 years for keeping three bags of poppy husk in his possession. Now he has been sentenced for 15 years for keeping in his possession 4 kgs of opium. The recovery of 2-1/2 kgs of 1 opium has been held to be non-commercial quantity and the present recovery is little higher to bring it into the definition of commercial quantity and 1-1/2 times punishment was awarded on account of repetition of the offence committed by him. Thus, if the accused undergoes consecutive sentence, then he will have to spend 25 years in jail besides he would have to undergo further sentence in default of payment of fine of Rs. 2.50 lacs which we consider significantly harsh so as to impel us to direct both the sentences to run concurrently.”
Section 427 Cr.P.C. reads as under :-
427.Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence :-
(1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence:
Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence
Crl. Appeal No. 1575-SB of 2006 and Crl. Appeal No. 2499-SB of 2007
4
immediately .
(2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.”
Thus, as per the above provision when a person is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment and he is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment then the sentences shall run consecutively in both the cases unless directed by the Court that the subsequent sentence was to run concurrently with the previous sentence. In the present case, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years in FIR No.254 dated 28.7.1994 registered at Police Station Sadar, under Section 15 of the Act vide judgment/order dated 25.10.2001. The appellant has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years in FIR No.4 dated 10.1.1997, registered at Police Station Mehna under Section 15 of the Act vide judgment/order dated 26.7.2006 by Judge Special Court, Moga. Subsequent to the said conviction the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years in FIR No. 25 dated 11.2.2001 registered at Police Station Haibowal under Section 15 of the Act vide judgment/order dated 26.11.2007.
Thus, in case the sentences are ordered to run consecutively, the appellant will have to spend 30 years in jail besides he would have to undergo sentence in default of payment of fine which is ` one lac in each case. In these circumstances, it would be just and expedient to order that sentences in all the cases shall run concurrently.
Crl. Appeal No. 1575-SB of 2006 and Crl. Appeal No. 2499-SB of 2007
5
Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the appellant as ordered by the courts' below in FIR No.4 dated 26.7.2006 and FIR No.25 dated 11.2.2001 are upheld. However, it is ordered that the sentence qua imprisonment in both the said FIRs shall run concurrently alongwith sentence ordered in FIR No.254 dated 28.7.1994 under Section 15 of the Act vide order dated 25.10.2001.
Appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
November 22, 2010 Anand
(SABINA) JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent running of three consecutive 10-year sentences imposed for offences under Section 15 of the NDPS Act is appropriate given the total harshness of the cumulative term.
Whether the learned Special Courts were correct in directing the sentences to run consecutively.
Whether the High Court can order the concurrent running of sentences in appeal despite the lower courts ordering them consecutively.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab, 2007 (4) RCR (Criminal) 712Relied on¶18
Pritam Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2007 (4) RCR (Criminal) 712
Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti's caseReferred¶19
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Darshan Singh
State of Punjab
SABINA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
