ANIL KUMAR versus STATE OF PUNJAB
[2017] 1 S.C.R. 418, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
. A 
B 
c 
[2017] 1 S.C.R. 418 
ANIL KUMAR 
v . 
. STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 77 of20 17) 
'JANUARY 17,2017 
[DIPAK MISRA AND R. BANUMATID, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.427- Exercise of power. 
under, scope - In ternls of sub-section (1) of s.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 vf the 
imprisonment to which he was previously sei1tenced- Only in 
appropriate cases, the court can make the sentence run concurrently 
with an earlier :Jentence imposed- The investiture of such discretion, 
D · presupposes that such d;scretion be exercised by the Court o~ sound 
judicial principles and not in a mechankal 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 -
In the instant case. 
E 
F 
the appellant was e"r/ier convicted u/s.22 NDPS Act and 
subsequemly convicted uls.27{b){ii) and s.28 of the Drugs and 
Cosmetks Act, 1940-111 view of nature of the offences for which 
the appellant was convicted and the facts and circumstances of the 
case, the sentence imposed on the appellant in the two offences to 
nm concurrently- However. the fine amount and the default sentence 
or sentences are maimained - If the fine amount is not paid, the 
default
sentence will run consecutively and not concurre.ntly -
Appeal allowed. 
V. K. Bansal v. State of Haryana and Am: (2013) 7 SCC 
211 : (20131 7 SCR 617; Benson v. Sta_te of Kerala 
G 
(2016) 10 SCC 307- relied on. 
H 
Case Law Reference 
i2Gl3) 7 SCR 617 
relied on 
(2016) 10 sec 307 
relied on 
' 418 
Para6 
Para7
~------ - ... _, ____ 
..... 
ANIL KUMAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
419 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
A 
No. 77 of2017. 
• 
From the Order dated 12.07.2016 by the High Court of Punjab 
and Haryana at Ch~digarh in CRM No. 19868 of20 16 in CRR No. 308 
of2016. 
Aman Preet Singh Rahi. Raghav Cbadl1, A. Venayngam Balan, 
Advs. for the AppeiJant. 
Jayant K. Sud, A jay P. Tushir, Umang Singh, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, 
Advs. for t11e Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R. BANUMATIU, J. I. This appeal arises out of the order dated 
• 
12.07.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at 
Chandigarh in CRM No.19868 of20 16 in CRR No.308 of20 16, whereby 
the application filed by the appellant seeking dire<:tion to treat sentence 
imposed on him in Complaint No.638 dated 24.08.2009 and that in FIR 
No.37 dated 19.04.2009 to run concurrently, was declined. 
2. Brief facts are as follows. By judgment dated 23.07.2014 in 
FIR No.37 dated 19.04.2009 PS Longowal. the appellant was convicted 
under Section 22 ofNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 
1985 (NDPS Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 
ten years and pay fine of rupee one Jakh and in default to undergo 
~ 
imprisonment for two years. By the judgment dated 25.08.2014, in the 
Complaint No.638 dated 24.08.2009, the appellant wns convicted under 
Section 27(b)(ii)and Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 
B 
c 
D 
E 
and was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year and 
pay fine of Rs.S,OOO/-(rupces five thousand). The appellant preferred 
appeal against the said conviction and the same was dismissed by the 
Appellate Court. The revision preferred by the appeJ I ant before the High 
Court was also dismissed by the judgment dated 24.05.2016 in CRR 
No.JOS of2016. The appellant filed miscellaneous application, CRM 
No.l9868 of 2016 seeking clarification of the order dated 24.05.2016 . a 
and further direction to treat the sentences of the appellant as concurrent 
F 
in terms of Section 427 ( 1) and (2) Cr.P.C. TI1e said application was 
dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order. 
· 
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 
H
420 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2o 1111 s.c.R: 
. . '· 4. The pm\ter conferred on the Court under Section 427 Cr.P.C. . . 
to ord~r concurrent sentence is discretionary. Section 427 Cr.P.C. reads 
·~ 
as under:-
' 
"S.427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another 
offence.-( t) 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 shalt 
commerce at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he lws been · I 
previously' sente.nced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent 
sentenct shall run concurrently with such previous sentence: · 
.c, 
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 inaking of such order, the latter 
sentenc;e shall commence immediately. 
(~)When :1 person nlrcHdy unrlergoing a sentence of imprisonment 
for li fc is sentenced em a su bsequcn t conviction to imprisonment for a 
term ·or imprisonment for life. the subscqurnt sentence shaU run 
concurrently wilh such previous sentence.:' 
' · . 5. In knns of sul,-scction ( l) of Section 42 7, if a person already 
undergoing a s~ntcnce of imprisonment is sentenced on a subse~ucnt 
conviction to imprisonm~nt, S11ch subseq11cnt tcm1 of imprisonment would
normally conuncnc~c at t]u:! cxp iration of the i mprbonmcnt to which he 
was previously scntc;:ced. Only in appropriate cnscs, considering the 
facts of the case, the court can •mtke the sentence run concurrently 
with nn cnrlicr sentence impose 1 Tl1t! investiture of such discretion, 
~re~u_rpos~s t.hat such discretion be exercised by the Court on sound 
J~dlcwl pnnc1pl\!s nnJ not in u mc~hanicai mann"'·r. \Vh~ther or nJt the 
diSCretion is tu OC CXCr'Ciscd in directing SCJllcm:~s tO fUll COnC'UiTLJltly 
\\:ould depend upon the nature of the offcncclt'n~n~es and th~ fads and 
Clrcumsranccs of cnch case. 
. 
: 6· ln V.K. Bu11.mll'. Stflle of /Iarymw ci."HI A nr. (20 1.3) 7 sCC 
211, It was he1u by this Court as under; 
. 
. 
. : .. 
"~tis m.an ifest. from Section 427 ( 1) that the Court hns the power ond the 
discretion to tssuc n direction but in the vt:ry nature of the power so 
conferred upon the Court the discretionary power shall have to be 
f 
I ' I 
I
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Sl.!PREMF COURT REPORTS 
[201711 S CR. 
4. The power conferred on the Court under s~ction 427 Cr.P.C. 
to order com·urrcut sentence is disactionllry. Section 427 Cr.P.C. reads 
as under·-
''S.427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another 
offence.-( I) When a person already 1mdergning a sentence of 
imprisonment is sen1cnccd on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment 
or imprisonment for life, such Imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall 
COilllllCI'CC at !he expiration of the imprisonment to whidt he has been 
previously sentenced: unless the Cuur1 Jirccts that !he subsct1ucnt 
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 com milled prior to the inaking of such order, the latter 
sentence shall ~ommence immediately. 
(:') Whcu ~person nlrc~dy undergoing a sl.!ntcnce of imprisonment 
for I it;: is sen1e-nced on a subseq!lent conv id ion tn imprisonment for a 
term or i:npri-;onment for life. the subsequent sentence shaH run 
concurrently with <;udt previ~1us sentence.:· 
5. In h'rms ~)r sub-~c'-'tiou (I) of Sed ion 427, if a person already 
undergoing ;: •:;:nt\.'nce of imprisonmellf is sentenced on a subsequent 
convictkm h.l iili[His~mmcnt, such subsequent term-of imprisonment would 
normally commence .1! (he
e>.pir~ttiou of the imprisonmenl to which he 
was previously seut~~=·-~ed. Only in appropriate cnses, considering the 
facts of th1.· case, th~ \:•mrt can •nakc the scnt~ncc run concurrently 
with an c:-~rli ... ~r scn~cncc impm;!: I. The investiture of such discretion, 
presupposes th~H sud1 Jbcrctit'll be exercised by the Court on sound 
judicial principles Md not in a lll<'chanical manner. Whether or not the 
discretion is to l>e exercised in direct iug 5cntcnccs to nm conl:u:; '.'ni!y 
would depend upon the nature of the dlcncc/offcnccs ;md ih·~ t"nc~:, a;ld 
circumstances of c;~ch o.:a-;~. 
6. ln V.K . .Bttmu[J•. S!ttle of llt~rymm !INI Am; (20 iJ) i SCC 
211. it was heid by this Cou11 as under: 
··It is maoifcst from Section 427 ( l) that th<.· Court hns the power and the 
di~(;retion to is~me a directil1tl but in th~ \'t)l')' nature of the power so 
<.~ontcrrcd upon the Court tlw dl'icrclionary power shall have to be
ANIL KlJMAR v. STATE OF PUN.IAA [R. BANUMATHI . .1.1 
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 rr.atter of exercise of such discretion by the courts. There is no cut 
and dried formula for the Court to follow in the rna tier of issue or r~fusal 
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 lo V.K.. Bausal's case, in Benson a•. Stute of 
Kerala (20 16) I 0 SCC 307: 2016 (9) SCALE 670, this Court directed 
.the substantive sentences imposed on the appellant Benson to run 
concurrently. The appellant therein was convicted for the offences 
punishable under Section 3 79 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 afores~id cases and tot3llength 
of sentences in aggregate was around nineteen years. 
8. In the present case, the appellant was earlier convicted under 
Section 22 NDPS Act and subsequently convicted under Sect ion 2 7(b )( ii) 
and Section 28 of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1940. Considering the 
nature of the offences for which the appellant was convicted and the 
facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct 
that the sentences imposed on the appellant in FlR No.3 7 and Complaint 
No.638 shall run concurrently. However, the fine amount and the default 
sentence or sentences are maintained. Jfth~: fine amount is not paid, the 
default sentence will run consecutively and not concurrently. 
9. The substantive sentences imposed on the appellant are ordered 
to run concurrently and the appeal is thus allowed. 
Devika Uujral 
Arpcal <lllowed. 
4~i 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
f 
G