Summary
The appellant pleaded guilty under a plea bargain in nine sessions trials for theft of electricity equipment. On the same day he was sentenced in each case to two years' simple imprisonment under Section 136 of the Electricity Act. The trial court set off his undertrial custody but gave no direction under Section 427(1) CrPC. The jail authorities treated the sentences as consecutive, a total of 18 years, and the Allahabad High Court refused habeas corpus relief. The Supreme Court held that this was a serious miscarriage of justice which the High Court should have corrected under Article 226. It directed that all nine sentences run concurrently.
Issues
- Whether, where nine sentences of two years each were imposed on the same day after plea bargaining and the trial court gave no direction under Section 427(1) CrPC, the appellant should be left to serve them consecutively for 18 years, and whether the High Court should have intervened under Article 226.
Provisions considered
- Section 427(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973A subsequent sentence ordinarily begins after the previous one unless the court specifically directs concurrency (Mohd Zahid v. State through NCB); since the trial court had not exercised that discretion, the Supreme Court directed concurrency itself. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 14)
- Sections 265-G and 428, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973A plea-bargain judgment is final, subject only to Article 136 and writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227; the trial court had granted set-off of undertrial custody, but that did not address concurrency. (¶¶ 9, 12)
- Articles 136 and 226, Constitution of IndiaThe Supreme Court acts as protector of personal liberty even in seemingly routine grievances, and the High Court, once moved under Article 226, ought to have set right the miscarriage of justice. (¶¶ 2, 13)
Held
- The Court's intervention to protect liberty in small and routine matters is a plain constitutional duty under Articles 32 and 136, and leaving the appellant to undergo 18 years for nine convictions, essentially under the Electricity Act, recorded on the same day, would be a serious miscarriage of justice. (¶¶ 2, 8, 13)
- Because the trial court granted only set-off and gave no specific direction under Section 427(1), the jail authorities treated the sentences as consecutive; the High Court, moved under Article 226, ought to have intervened, and the Supreme Court directed that the sentences in all nine trials run concurrently. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
Result
Criminal Appeal No. 2319 of 2022 allowed; the Allahabad High Court judgment dated 24.03.2022 in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 460 of 2021 set aside; the sentences in the nine sessions trials directed to run concurrently and the jail authorities to act immediately on production of a certified copy.