1 APHC010144232025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 7597/2025 Between: 1. GUTTULA NAGAMANI, W/O.YEDUKONDALA VISVESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O.D.NO.1-123/1, MAIN ROAD, MOGALTHURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY - HOME (PRISONS) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, RAJAHMUNDRY CENTRAL PRISON, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not treating the conviction passed in CC.Nos. 152/2016, 348/2016, 117/2017 and 318/2018 by the Honble I Addl.Junior Civil Judge - cum- First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasapur contrary to the direction in CC.No.318/2018 that the sentence shall run concurrently as illegal and arbitrary and violation of Articles 19, 21 of Constitution of India and 2 consequently direct the 3rd respondent to treat the all the sentences in concurrent manner and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant interim direction directing the 3rd respondent to treat the all the sentences passed in CC.Nos.152/2016, 348/2016, 117/2017 and 318/2018 by the Hon’ble I Addl.Junior Civil Judge - cum- First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasapur in concurrent manner, pending disposal of the above writ petition, and pass such IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to amend the 3rd respondent’s description in the cause title of the above writ petition from “the Superintendent, Rajahmundry Central Prison, Rajahmehendravaram, East Godavari District” to “the Superintendent, District Jail, Eluru, Eluru District” and also wherever it is mentioned in the writ affidavit and. pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B V ANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 7597/2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not treating the conviction passed in CC.Nos. 152/2016, 348/2016, 117/2017 and 318/2018 by the Honble I Addl.Junior Civil Judge - cum- First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasapur contrary to the direction in CC.No.318/2018 that the sentence shall run concurrently as illegal and arbitrary and violation of Articles 19, 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to treat the all the sentences in concurrent manner and pass…” 2. Heard Sri B.V.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s husband was convicted in four calendar cases vide C.C.Nos.152 of 2016, 348 of 2016, 117 of 2017 and 318 of 2018 before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasapur. In C.C.No.152 of 2016, the petitioner’s husband was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of three (3) months and also to pay a compensation of Rs.9,50,000/-, in default of payment of compensation, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months vide judgment dated 29.07.2022. In C.C.No.348 of 2016, the petitioner’s husband was convicted and sentenced to pay a compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- in default of 4 payment of compensation, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months vide judgment dated 16.11.2022. In C.C.117 of 2017, the petitioner’s husband was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-, in default of payment of compensation, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months vide judgment dated 22.08.2022. In C.C.No.318 of 2018, the petitioner’s husband was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and shall pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- vide judgment dated 29.10.2024. Learned counsel would further submit that the learned Trial Judge in C.C.No.318 of 2018, has observed that the accused was previously convicted in three cheque bounces cases i.e., C.C.Nos.152 of 2016, 348 of 2016 & 117 of 2017, therefore, directed the sentence in that case to be run concurrently with such previous sentences. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition by invoking Section 427 of Cr.P.C., which deals with the sentence on offender who has already been sentenced for another offence. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has not disputed the factual aspects of the matter and on written instructions would submit that the learned Trial Court explicitly ordered that the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. He would further submit that the court orders do not specify that the default sentences imposed for nonpayment of compensation shall run concurrently. 5. For ready reference, Section 427 of Cr.P.C., is extracted hereunder: 5 “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.” 6. As per Section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure, in normal course a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, if sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such imprisonment commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, but the court in its discretion based on settled principles may direct that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with previous sentence. While exercising such discretion, the trial court, appellate court or revisional court, as the case may be, keep in mind several factors. In the instant case, the learned trial courts did not exercise its discretion with respect to concurrency of sentences and thus, there is absolutely non-consideration of the issue about invoking this discretion which is causing great injustice. 6 7. In similar circumstances, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur, in the matter of Bhoor Singh Kharwal Son Of Gutthal Kharwal, Resident Of Village Jiyapur, Police Station Gangapur City, District Gangapur City (Raj). (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Bharatpur) V. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1850/2024, has observed as follows: “The Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed. It is directed that the sentence passed in the aforesaid criminal cases (Annexure-1 to Annexure-3) would run concurrently. 10. However, the petitioner will have to serve default sentences, as the provisions of Section 427 Cr.P.C. do not permit a direction for concurrent running of substantive sentences with the sentences awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation. The sentences, which the petitioner has been directed to undergo in default of payment of fine/compensation shall not be effected by this direction and if the petitioner has not paid the fine/compensation as directed by the trial court, the said sentence would run consecutively. Needless to say, if the petitioner pays the fine/compensation now, he is not required to undergo default sentences. If petitioner has undergone the sentence and sentence in lieu of default of fine, he be released forthwith, if not warranted in any other case.” 8. Considering the submissions, a fair look at the material placed on record and in the light of the legal position referred supra, as rightly put by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that the learned Trial Court explicitly ordered that the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. He would further submit that the court orders do not specify that the default sentences imposed for nonpayment of compensation shall run concurrently. With regard to the sentences of imprisonment in the case of default of payment of compensation, unless there is a specific direction from the sentencing court that the default sentences to run concurrently, the default 7 sentences shall be executed consequently. In that view, there is no merit in the petition, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the accused will have to serve default sentences, as the provisions of Section 427 Cr.P.C. do not permit a direction for concurrent running of substantive sentences with the sentences awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation. if the accused has not paid the fine/compensation as directed by the trial court, the said sentence would run consecutively. Needless to say, if the accused pays the fine/compensation now, he is not required to undergo default sentences. If accused has undergone the sentence and sentence in lieu of default of fine, he be released forthwith, if not warranted in any other case. 9. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 05.08.2025 UPS 8 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.7597 of 2025 Dated.05.08.2025 UPS 247