BENSON versus STATE OF KERALA
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 166, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Case Partly allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 166 
BENSON 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 958of2016) 
OCTOBER 03, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.42? - Concurrent 
running of subsequent sentence with previous sentence - Appellant 
charged of having committed various offences - Tried separately 
and sentenced in each of the offences - Plea of appellant for 
concurrent running of sentences - Held: Court has the power and 
discretion to issue a direction that the subsequent sentence shall 
run concurrently with the previous sentence - 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 -
On facts, sentence imposed on appellant in each of the present cases 
to run concurrently with the sentence imposed upon the appellant 
in another crime committed by him which is currently operative -
Howeve1; this benefit limited in respect of substantive sentences and 
not on default sentences and sentences of fine. 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. In terms of sub-section (1) of Section 427 of 
Cr.P.C., 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 
sentenced. Going by this normal principle, in the instance case 
the sentence
chart indicated in communication mentioned is quite 
correct. However this normal rule is subject to a qualification 
and it is within the powers of the Court to direct that the 
subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous 
sentence. [Para 6][174-G-H; 175-A) 
2. In the present case, the appellant stands convicted and 
sentenced in 12 different matters including the present 4 matters. 
The maximum sentence in respect of the present crimes is two 
166
BENSON v. STATE OF KERALA 
167 
years' rigorous imprisonment. As per the record, these crimes A 
were committed on the same day. Having considered the matters, 
the sentences imposed in each of the present 4 cases (which 
appear at serial nos.9, 10, 11 and 12 of the chart/communication 
received from the Director General of Prisons & Correctional 
Services) shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed in 
8 
crime no.8 which is currently operative. This benefit is granted 
in respect of substantive sentences to the appellant but the 
sentences of fine and the default sentences arc maintained. If 
the fine as imposed is not deposited, the default sentence or 
sentences are to run consecutively and not concurrently. [Paras 
4, 9)174-A; 176-B-D] 
C 
V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 
211 : :Z013 (7) SCR 617 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
2013 (7) SCR 617 
referred to 
Para 7 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
958of2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.09.2015 of the High Court 
ofKerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No. 808 of2015 
WITH 
Criminal Appeal Nos. 957, 959 & 960 of2016. 
Ranjith B. Marar, Ms. Lakshmi N. Kaimal and T. K. Babu, Advs. 
for the Appellant. 
G. Prakash, Jishnu M. L., Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Ms. Beena 
Prakash, Manu Srinath and Ramesh Babu M. R., Advs. for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
E 
F 
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. I. Leave granted. These appeals . G 
by Special Leave arise out of
judgments and orders passed by the High 
Court of Kerala in Criminal Revision Petition Nos. (i) 808 of 2015 on 
16.09.2015, (ii) 859of2015 on 16.09.2015, (iii) 858of2015 on 14.09.2015 
and (iv) 670of2015 on 17.09.2015. 
H
168 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
2. On the allegation that the appellant was involved in committing 
thefts he was charged of having committed offences on different 
occasions and was separately tried in i) CC No.158 of 2004 before 
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chavakkad for offences punishable under 
Section 379, 414 read with 34 !PC, ii) CC No.1039 of2003 by Judicial 
B 
Magistrate First Class, Chavakkad for offences punishable under Section 
379, 414 read with 34 !PC, iii) CC No.390 of2004 by Judicial Magistrate 
First Class, Chavakkad for offences punishable under Section 3 79, 414 
read with 34 !PC and (iv) CC No.1168 of2006 by Judicial Magistrate 
First Class, Kunnamkulam. By separate judgments, the appellant was 
convicted and sentenced in each of the aforesaid crimes. The respective 
C 
appeals preferred by the appellant were dismissed by the Sessions Judge, 
Thrissur. The appellant filed Criminal Revision Petitions in the High 
Court which were also dismissed. The following chart would disclose 
the relevant details:-
D 
C.C.'.\'o,[ 
Date 
Date 
of 
CrL Appeal 
CrL 
SLP 
Offence 
of 
Conviction and 
'.\'o. 
R.P. 
'.\'o. 
occurrence 
Sentence 
by 
'.\'o. in 
Judicial 
the 
E 
Magistrate 
High 
First Class 
Court 
15&2004 
03.06.2003 
28.06.06, 
5312012 
80R 
SLP 
in the Court 
RI for 2 years decided on 
2015 
(Cr!.) 
of Judicial 
and 
fine 
of 15.11.2012 
3757,' 
Magistrate First 
Rs.1,000/-
for by Sessions 
2016 
Class (in shon 
offence u!s 379
Judge, 
F 
JMFC), 
IPC and RI for 2 Thrissur 
Chmkkad! 
years u/s 414 ID 
U/s 379, 414 ri\'' 
RI for 3 months 
34 ofIPC 
G 
H

1039;2003 
in the Court 
ofJMFC, 
Chavakkad/ 
U!s 379, 414 r;\v 
34 of!PC 
3902004 
in the Court 
of JMFC, 
Chavakkadl 
Uis 379, 414 r/w 
34ofIPC 
1168/2006 
in the Court 
ofJMFC, 
Kunnamkulam! 
U.s 379 r/w 34 
of!PC 
BENSON v. STATE OF KERALA 
[UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.] 
03.06.2003 
28.06.06, 
7592011 
RI for 2 years decided on 
and 
fine 
of 17.09.2012 
Rs.l.OOO:-
for by Sessions 
offence u!s 3 79 Judge, 
!PC and RI for 2 Turissur 
years for offence 
u/s 414 !PC, ID 
RI for 3 months. 
03.06.2003 
28.06.06, 
7612011 
RI for 2 years decided on 
and 
fine 
of 04.08.2012 
Rs.1,000.'-
for by Sessions 
offence u:s 379 Judge, 
!PC and RI for 2 Turissur 
years u.!s 414 ID 
RI for 3 months 
03.06.2003 
31.12.08, 
46L201! 
RI for 1 year decided on 
and 
fine 
of 30.09.2011 
Rs.1,000'- !D SI by Sessions 
for 6months 
Judge, 
Tiuissur 
859! 
SLP 
2015 
(Cd.) 
37591 
2016 
858. 
SLP 
2015 
(CrL) 
3758/ 
2016 
670! 
SLP 
2005 
(Cr!.) 
3756/ 
2016 
3. These matters came up on 22.04.20 I 6 when this Court noted 
169 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding 
concurrent running of sentences and issued notice to the State. The 
learned counsel appearing for the State has produced before us 
communication dated 27.05.2016 from the Director General of Prisons 
G 
and Correctional Services, which is as under:-
H
170 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 8 S.C.R. 
WPl-9606/2016 
From 
"PRISONS HEADQUARTERS, 
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 
Dated: 27.05.2016 
The Director General of Prisons & 
Correctional Services. 
To 
The Law Officer, 
C 
Office of the Resident Commissioner, 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Travancore Palace, 
Kasturba Gandhi Marg, 
New Delhi-110 001. 
Sir, 
SL 
No. 
1 
2 
3 
Sub: Prisons - Prisons Headquarters, Kerala - Supreme 
Coui1 case - SLP (Crl) CRLMP No.6727/2016/Benson 
vs. State of Kerala - reg. 
Ref: Lr. No.38749/81/2016/Home dtd.19/05/2016 
Attention is invited to the subject & reference cited. 
I may furnish the details called for vide reference is noted 
below: 
Conviction Details 
Case No., Court 
Sentence Details 
and Warrant Date 
cc 613i03 
Sentenced to undergo RI for3 years uis 379 
JFCM I, Thrissur 
IPC 
Wdt.20-11-2003 
Set off97 days. Atlarge bail period -153 
days. 
cc 533;04 
Sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years ufs 392 
JFMC II, Thrissur 
IPC 
Wdt.8-6-2005 
Set off 521 days. 
cc 529!04 
Sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years ufs 392 
JFMC II, Thrissur 
IPC, 
w dt.18-6-2005 
Set off 493 days
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
BENSON v. STATE OF KERALA 
[UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.] 
CC 1270113 JFCM 
Sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years +fine 
Changanassery 
Rs.50001- id SI for 1 month u/s 380 IPC, RI 
Wdt.18-6-2005 
for 2 years + fine Rs.5 ,000!- L'd SI for I 
month uis 457 IPC (Concurrently) Set of 348 
days 
CC 1115103 JFCM 
Sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years +fine 
Irinjalakk11da 
Rs.2,000/- i!d SI for 2 months u/s 379 IPC 
Wdt. 4-7-2005 
Set off 402 davs 
cc 932105 
Sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years +fine 
JFMC Irinjalak11da 
Rs-2,000,- L'd SI for 2 months 11's 379 IPC 
Wdt.4-7-2005 
Set off 465 days 
cc 171105 
Sentenced to widergo RI for 5 years u.s 392 
ADSJ Adhoc II 
!PC, RI for 3 years u/s 120(B) IPC 
Kana yam 
(ConC\llrently) Set off 418 days. 
Wdt.25-11-2005 
cc 274,06 
Sentenced to undergo SI for 3 years us 205 
JFCM Kodwigallur 
!PC 
Wdt.30-9-2008 
Set off 414 days 
cc 158/04 
Sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years + fme 
JF CM Cha va.kkad 
Rs.1,000. - iid SI for 3 months u's 3 79 IPC, 
w dt.28-6-2006 
RI for2 years u·s 414 !PC (Concurrently) 
Set off347 days 
CC 1039'03 JFCM 
Seutenced to undergo RI for 2 years .,. fine 
Chavakkad 
Rs.1,000- i'd SI for 3 months ws 379 !PC, RI 
\Vdt. 28-6-2006 
for 2 years u.'s 414 !PC (Concurrently) 
Ser off 240 days 
cc 39004 
Sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years +fine 
JFCM Chavakkad 
Rs.1,000- i'd SI for 3 momhs 11s 379 IPC, RI 
Wdr.28-6-2006 
for 2 years ws 414 !PC (Concurrently) Set off 
14ldays 
cc 1168,06 
Sentenced to
undergo RI for 1 year t fine 
JFCM 
Rs.1,000 Ld SI for 2 months uis 379 r/w 34 
Kunnamangalam 
!PC Set off 14 days 
Wdt.31-12-2008 
171 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H

172 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20 I 6) 8 S.C.R. 
A 
Sentence Calculation 
S.No. 
Case No. 
Sentence Calculation 
1n Sentence Started 
20-11-2003 
B 
1 
cc 613/03 
Sentence 3 years 
19-11-2006 
JFCM I, Thrissur 
Set Off 9 7 days 
14-08-2006 
At large 153 days 
14-01-2007 
) 
cc 533/04 
2ui Sentence Started 
14-01-2007 
JFCM II, Thrissur 
Semence 2 years 
14-01-2007 
Set off 521 days 
12-08-2009 
c 
3 
cc 529<04 
3m Sentence Started 
12-08-2009 
JFCM II, Thrissur 
Sentence 3 years 
12-08-2010 
Set off 49 3 davs 
06-04-2009 
4 
CC 1270.'13 JFCM 
4± Sentence Started 
06-04-2009 
Changanasseiy 
Sentence 2 years 
06-04-2011 
D 
Set off 348 days 
23-04-2010 
5 
CC 115/03 JFCM 
5± Sentence Started 
23-04-2010 
I 
hinjalili:uda 
Semence 2 vears 
23-04-2012 
E 
Set off ~02 days 
lS-03-2011 
I 6 
cc 932'05 
6&. Sentence Staned 
18-03-2011 
I 
JFCM Irinjalakuda 
Sentence 2 yms 
lS-03-2013 
Set off 465 days 
. 
09-12-2011 
7 
SC 171/05 
/t't. Sentence Started 
09-12-2011 
F 
ADSJ Adhoc II, 
Sentence 5 years 
09-12-2016 
Kottayam 
Set off 418 days 
18-10-2015 
s 
cc 27t06 
Stt. Sentellce Staned 
18-10-2015 
JFCM Kodullgallur 
Sentence 3 years 
18-10-2018 
Set off~ 14 days 
30-08-2017 
' 
9 
cc 1ss.o.i 
9:: Sentence Stanrd 
30-0S-~017 
I 
IF C ?>I C!ma:.;kad 
Senteuce 2 wats 
30-0S-~019 
I 
G 
I I 
Set off 34 7 davs 
17-09-2018 
H
10 
11 
12 
BENSON v. STATE OF KERALA 
[UDAY UMESH LALJT, J.] 
CC 1039/03 JFCM 
1 OU: Sentence Started 
Chavakkad 
Sentence 2 years 
Set off 240 days 
cc 390/04 
11 tl: Sentence Started 
JFCM 
Sentence 2 years 
Chavakkad 
Set off l·H days 
cc 1168106 
!2U: Sentence Started 
JFCM 
Sentence 1 year 
Kunnamangalam 
Set off 14 days 
Fine Sentence 
Details 
17-9-201& 
17-09-2020 
21-01-2020 
21-01-2020 
21-01-2022 
02-09-2021 
02-09-2021 
02-09-2022 
19-08-2022 
19-10-2022 (F4) 
19-12-2022 
(F5) 
19-02-2023 
(F6) 
19-05-2023 
(F9) 
19-08-'.l023 (FlO) 
19-11-2023 
(11) 
19-05-2024 
tF12) 
As per the records, he· wi II spend 12 years 3 months and 8 
days in prison as on 31 /07/2016. 
His date of expiry of substantive sentence falls on 19-08-
2022 without any remission. He has already earned 3 years 
I 0 months 27 days remission as on 26-05-16. He has to 
pay fine ofRs.18,000/- in various cases in default he has to 
undergo I year 5 months in Jail. 
Yours faithfully, 
Sd/-
Director General of Prisons & 
Correctional Services" 
173 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
174 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
1-1 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016) 8 S.C.R. 
4. According to the aforesaid communication, the appellant stands 
convicted and sentenced in 12 different matters including the present 
matters which appear at Serial Nos.9, I 0, 11 and 12 in the chart. Going 
by the sentence calculation, the sentence in the 9'h case would begin on 
30.08.2017 and finally, the sentence in the J 2•h case, after getting all 
benefits of set off, would be over on 02.09.2022. 
5. Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is as 
under:-
"427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for 
another offence. -(I) 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." 
6. In terms of sub-section (I) of Section 427, ifa person already 
undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent 
conviction to imprisonment, such subsequent tenn of imprisonment would 
normally commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he 
was previously sentenced. Going by this normal principle, the sentence 
chart indicated in the communication dated 27.05.2016 is quite correct. 
However this normal rule is subject to a qualification and it is within the
BENSON v. STATE OF KERALA 
175 
[UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.] 
powers of the Court to direct that the subsequent sentence shall run 
A 
concurrently with the previous sentence. 
7. In V.K.Bansal v. State of Haryww amt A11otl1er1 it was 
stated by th is Court: 
"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( I). 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; i) 
the first having 12 cases, ii) the second having 2 cases and iii) the third 
having a single case. This Court directed that substantive sentences 
within first two groups would run inter se concun-ently and the substantive 
sentences in first two groups and that in respect of the case in the third 
group
would run consecutively. The benefit was confined only in respect 
of substantive sentences and no qua sentences in default. 
8. We have gone through the record and considered rival 
submissions. We do not find anything incorrect in the assessment made 
by the Courts below and in our view the orders of conviction recorded 
against the appellant in the present cases are quite correct. We also do 
not find anything wrong in the quantum of sentence imposed in respect 
of the respective crimes. However going by the sentence calculation, 
the sentence imposed in respect of the first crime sta1ied with effect 
from 20.11.2003 and the last sentence would be over by 19.08.2022, 
which would effectively mean that the total length of sentences in 
aggregate would be around 19 years. We are not concerned with first 
1 
(2013) 7 sec 211 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
176 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
eight matters and sentences imposed in respect of those crimes. The 
sentence in respect of 8'h crime is presently running against the appellant 
and would be over on 30.08.2017. 
9. The maximum sentence in respect of the present crimes is two 
years' rigorous imprisonment. As per the record, these crimes were 
committed on the same day. Having considered the matters, we deem it 
appropriate to direct that the sentences imposed in each of the cases, 
i.e. (i) CC No.158 of2004, (ii) CC No. I 039 of2003, (iii) CC No. 390 of 
2004 and (iv) CC No. 1168 of 2006 namely those at Sl.Nos.9 to 12 
respectively as indicated in the sentence chart in the communication 
dated 27.05.2016 shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed in 
Crime No.8 which is currently operative. We grant this benefit in respect 
of substantive sentences to the appellant but maintain the sentences of 
fine and the default sentences. If the fine as imposed is not deposited, 
the default sentence or sentences will run consecutively and not 
concurrently. 
I 0. The appeals are thus allowed in part and the orders of sentences 
stand modified accordingly. 
Ankit Gyan 
Appeals partly allowed.