Comparative Analysis of the hierarchy, Jurisdiction and powers of Criminal courts to impose sentences as per provisions of CR.P.C and BNSS 2023

S 4 of CRPC(S 4 of BNSS)- Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws.—(1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained.

(2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.

S 5 of CRPC (S 5 of BNSS)- Saving.—Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force.

 Chapter II

Print Page

Whether court can direct different sentences passed in different cases to run concurrently?

In the instant case, the learned Magistrate has not at all considered the exercise of his power under Section 427(1) even though, as already observed by us, the facts and circumstances of the case required him to do so. To aggravate the situation, the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that there was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure permitting different sentences passed in different cases to run concurrently. This only shows non-application of mind as well as ignorance of law on the part of both the Courts below which has resulted in committing of a grave error of law writ large on the face of the record further leading to miscarriage of justice in the present case. That also shows failure to perform a public duty.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Writ Petition No. 1437 of 2013

Decided On: 22.07.2013

Abidkhan  Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.C. Dharmadhikari and S.B. Shukre, JJ.

 Citation: 2014 ALL Mr. (Cri.) 1719

Print Page

Whether sentences can run concurrently if conviction relates to two different transactions?

The above general rule that there cannot be concurrency of sentence if conviction relates to two different transactions, can be changed by an order of the Court. There is no strait jacket formula for the Court to follow in the matter of issue or refusal of a direction within the contemplation of Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. Depending on the special and peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is for the court to make the sentence of imprisonment in the subsequent trial run concurrently with the sentence in the previous one. In Benson v. State of Kerala (2016) 10 SCC 307, this Court directed the substantive sentences imposed on the appellant to run concurrently. In V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 211, some sentences were to run concurrently and some consecutively. In paras (14) and (16) in V.K. Bansal’s case, it was held as under:-

“14. We may at this stage refer to the decision of this Court in Mohd. Akhtar Hussain v. Collector of Customs (1988) 4 SCC 183 in which this Court recognised the basic rule of convictions arising out of a single transaction justifying concurrent running of the sentences. The following passage is in this regard apposite: (SCC p. 187, para 10)  CA NO.253 OF 2017 “10. The basic rule of thumb over the years has been the so-called single transaction rule for concurrent sentences. If a given transaction constitutes two offences under two enactments generally, it is wrong to have consecutive sentences. It is proper and legitimate to have concurrent sentences. But this rule has no application if the transaction relating to offences is not the same or the facts constituting the two offences are quite different.”

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.”

69. This instant case is one covered under Section 427 Cr.P.C. As noted earlier appellant Neera Yadav has been convicted in two different cases, one of abusing the official position in getting the plots allotted to herself and her daughters and other irregularities in making changes in the site plan and another one in abusing her position as CEO, Noida conspired with Rajiv Kumar in allotting plot to him. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of allegations, in our view, it is not justifiable to direct concurrency of sentence. Any unprincipled exercise of judicial discretion and casual direction made regarding concurrency would go against the express provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Criminal Procedure Code.

Supreme Court of India

Neera Yadav vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 2 August, 2017

Print Page

When accused can be permitted to give voice sample of only words and not sentences from disputed conversation?

By an Order of this Court dated 1 July 2016, the
Investigating officer was directed to file a transcript of the
disputed conversation in a sealed cover. The Director
CFSL-CBI, was called upon to file in a sealed cover a
proposed passage of a written text which the Appellants
shall be required to read out for the purpose of giving their
voice samples using words, but not the sentences,
appearing in the disputed conversation in such number as
the Director/Scientific Officer may consider necessary for
the purpose of comparison.
13 We are of the view that the aforesaid directions which
have been issued by this Court would allay the
apprehension of the Appellants in regard to the fairness of
the process involved in drawing the voice sample. Our
directions ensure that the text which the Appellants would
be called upon to read out for the purpose of drawing their
voice samples will not have sentences from the inculpatory
text. Similarly, permitting the text to contain words drawn
from the disputed conversation would meet the legitimate
concern of the investigating authorities for making a fair
comparison.
14 In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court the
Investigating officer has filed in sealed cover: (i) transcripts
of the disputed conversations; and (ii) a proposed passage
of a written text required to be read out by the Appellants
for the purpose of giving their voice samples. The passage
contains words but not the sentences appearing in the
disputed conversation. Having perused the contents of the
sealed covers, we are satisfied that the Investigating officer
has complied with our directions. We order accordingly.
15 The order passed by the High Court shall accordingly
stand modified and be substituted by the aforesaid
directions.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 700-701 OF 2016

SUDHIR CHAUDHARY   Vs  STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 

 Dr. D Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
Dated:JULY 29, 2016.
Citation: 2016 SCC ONLINE SC 747,(2016) 8 SCC307

Print Page