10.03.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 28 March, 2025

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Reserved On : 10.03.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 28 March, 2025

Author: Virender Singh

Bench: Virender Singh

2025:HHC:8359

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.569 of 2024
Reserved on : 10.03.2025
Decided on : 28.03.2025
Prince @Vicky …Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent

Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1

For the petitioner : Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick and Mr. H.S.
Rawat, Additional Advocates
General with Mr. Rohit Sharma,
Deputy Advocate General.

Virender Singh, Judge.

Petitioner-Prince @Vicky has filed the present

petition, under Section 482 read with Section 427 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as

‘CrPC‘), with a prayer to order the concurrent running of

sentences, awarded to him, in cases, FIR No.382/2016

dated 01.12.2016, registered under Section 457, 380 and

411 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the

‘IPC‘), with Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur,

H.P., and FIR No.385/2016 dated 04.12.2016, registered

1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2 2025:HHC:8359

under Sections 457 and 511 of IPC, with Police Station

Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P.

2. According to the petitioner, he has been

convicted by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Court No.2, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P.

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), in relation to

FIR No.382/16 (supra) and has been sentenced to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a

fine of Rs.250/- for the commission of offence, punishable

under Section 457 of IPC. He has further been sentenced

to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years

and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- for the commission of offence,

punishable under Section 380 of IPC. In default of payment

of fine, he has further been directed to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of 10 days, vide judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 25.03.2023, copy

whereof has been annexed with the petition as Annexure

P-1.

3. It has been averred in the petition that at

present, the petitioner is undergoing sentence. According

to him, during his custody, he has been convicted in

relation to FIR No.385/2016 (supra), by the learned trial
3 2025:HHC:8359

Court, and has been sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/- for the commission of offence, punishable

under Section 457 of IPC and in default of payment of fine,

he has further been directed to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of 10 days. He has further been

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the

commission of offence, punishable under Section 511 of

IPC. In default of payment of fine, he has further been

directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 05

days, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 20.10.2023, copy whereof has been annexed with the

petition as Annexure P-2.

4. According to the petitioner, both the judgments

of conviction and orders of sentence, as referred to above,

have been announced, on the basis of the confession, made

by the petitioner, before the learned trial Court.

5. As per the petitioner, the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence, passed in case FIR

No.385/2016, shall commence after expiry of the earlier
4 2025:HHC:8359

judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed in

case FIR No.382/2016 (supra).

6. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been

made to allow the petition, by exercising the power, under

Section 427 of CrPC, regarding running of sentences,

awarded to the petitioner, by the learned trial Court,

concurrently.

7. Custody certificate, dated 27.05.2024, issued by

the Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan,

H.P., has also been annexed with the petition, which is

Annexure P-3. Relevant portion of the said certificate is

reproduced, as under:-

“Other Pending Execution :-

1. In Case FIR No.385/2016, Case No. 146/2017,
U/s 457,511 IPC, PS Paonta Sahib, 01 Years SI
and Fine Rs. 1500/-, I/D 15 days SI, awarded by
the Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2,
Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P on
20/10/2023. This Sentence shall run after expiry
of previous sentence.

2. In case FIR No.312/2017 dated 27/06/2017,
U/s 379 IPC, P.S Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmaur,
H.P, S.I. for 06 months and fine Rs. 4000/-, I.D. SI
for 07 days, awarded by the Ld. Addl. C.J.M
Court No.i, Paonta Sahib on 16/11/2022. The
sentence has been executed but the sentence in
default of fine is kept in abeyance.

3. In case FIR No.187/2022 dated 30/08/2022,
U/s 379,201,120-B IPC, P.S Paonta Sahib, Distt.

Sirmaur, H.P, S.I. for 09 months and fine Rs.
4000/-, I.D. SI for 07 days, awarded by the Ld.
5 2025:HHC:8359

Addl. C.J.M Court No.1 Paonta Sahib on
21/01/2023. The sentence has been executed but
the sentence in default of fine is kept in abeyance.

4. In case FIR No.405/2022, U/s 379 IPC, P.S
Haridwar, U.K, S.I. for 06 months and fine Rs.
2000/-, I.D. SI for 15 days, awarded by the Ld.
Judicial Magistrate-III cum-Addl. Civil Magistrate
Haridwar, U.K on 18/03/2023. The sentence has
been executed but the sentence in default of fine
is kept in abeyance.

This certificate is being issued to convict
Prince @ Vicky S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar on his own
request for the purpose of submission before the
Hon’ble High Court of H.P, through his counsel.”

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.K. Bansal

versus State of Haryana & Another, (2013) 7 Supreme

Court Cases, 211, has held that the powers, under

Section 427(1) CrPC, should be exercised judiciously and

not mechanically. Relevant paragraph 16 is reproduced,

as under:-

“16. In conclusion, we may say that the
legal position favours exercise of discretion to
the benefit of the prisoner in cases where the
prosecution is based on a single transaction
no matter different complaints in relation
thereto may have been filed as is the position
in cases involving dishonour of cheques
issued by the borrower towards repayment
of a loan to the creditor.”

9. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil

Kumar versus State of Punjab, (2017) 5 Supreme Court

Case, 53, has elaborately discussed the provisions of
6 2025:HHC:8359

Section 427 CrPC. Relevant paragraphs 4 to 7 are

reproduced, as under:-

“4. The power conferred on the Court under
Section 427 Cr.P.C. to order concurrent sentence
is discretionary. Section 427 Cr.P.C. reads as
under:-

“S.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
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.”

5. In terms of sub-section (1) of Section
427, if a person already undergoing a
sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a
subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such
subsequent term of imprisonment would
normally commence at the expiration of the
imprisonment to which he was previously
7 2025:HHC:8359

sentenced. Only in appropriate cases,
considering the facts of the case, the court
can make the sentence run concurrently with
an earlier sentence imposed. The investiture
of such discretion, presupposes that such
discretion be exercised by the Court on sound
judicial principles and not in a mechanical
manner. Whether or not the discretion is to be
exercised in directing sentences to run
concurrently would depend upon the nature
of the offence/offences and the facts and
circumstances of each case.

6. In V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana and
Anr. (2013) 7 SCC 211, it was held by this
Court as under:

“It is manifest from Section 427 (1) that the
Court has the power and the discretion to
issue a direction but in the very nature of the
power so conferred upon the Court the
discretionary power shall have to be
exercised along the judicial lines and not in a
mechanical, wooden or pedantic manner. It is
difficult to lay down any straitjacket
approach in the matter of exercise of such
discretion by the courts. There is no cut and
dried formula for the Court to follow in the
matter of issue or refusal of a direction within
the contemplation of Section 427(1). Whether
or not a direction ought to be issued in a
given case would depend upon the nature of
the offence or offences committed, and the
fact situation in which the question of
concurrent running of the sentences arises.”

This Court then went on to club various
crimes in respect of which sentences were
imposed upon the appellant therein in three
groups.

7. After referring to V.K. Bansal‘s case, in
Benson v. State of Kerala (2016) 10 SCC 307:

2016 (9) SCALE 670, this Court directed the
substantive sentences imposed on the

8 2025:HHC:8359

appellant Benson to run concurrently. The
appellant therein was convicted for the
offences punishable under Section 379 and
Section 414 read with Section 34 IPC in at
least eleven cases. By a separate judgment,
the appellant was convicted and sentenced in
each of the aforesaid cases and total length
of sentences in aggregate was around
nineteen years.”

10. The petitioner is a young man of 35 years and

considering the fact that the sentences, in both the cases,

were inflicted, on the basis of the confession, made by the

petitioner, this Court is of the view that ends of justice

would be met, if the substantive sentence, in case FIR

No.385/2016 dated 04.12.2016, registered under Sections

457 and 511 of IPC, with Police Station Paonta Sahib,

District Sirmaur, H.P., in which, he has been convicted

and sentenced, vide judgment dated 20.10.2023, is ordered

to be run concurrently.

11. It is further clarified that in view of the decision

of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vicky @ Vikas versus State

(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2020 (3) SCALE 40, the benefit of

the ‘concurrent running of sentences’ is granted to the

petitioner, with regard to the substantive sentence and not

the sentence, which has been inflicted, upon him, in

default of payment of fine.

9 2025:HHC:8359

12. With these observations, the petition stands

allowed.

13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,

shall also stand disposed of.

                                       ( Virender Singh )
March 28, 2023                                Judge
 (Gaurav Thakur)