- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27066 CRL.P No. 3054 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3054 OF 2020 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: AMBARISH S KAPADIA S/O SUNDARLAL, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.9, ASHISH SUVARNA NAGAR, NORTH SOUTH ROAD, NO.5, JVPD SCHEME, MUMBAI-400056. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.M.J.NANIAH, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI. MRC MANOHAR, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY CBI CBI KARNATAKA STATE HQ GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE-560032 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO ORDER THE RUN THE SENTENCES CONCURRENTLY IMPOSED IN SPL.C.C.NO.18/1987 AT HONBLE XXI ACJ BENGALURU WHEREIN PETITIONER ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.2 IN SPL.C.C.NO.128/1993 AT HONBLE XXI ACJ BENGALURU WHEREIN PETITIONER ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.2 IN C.C.NO.1943/1987 HONBLE XVII A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27066 CRL.P No. 3054 of 2020 WHEREIN PETITIONER ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1 IN C.C.NO.6567/1989 AT HONBLE XVII A.C.M.M., WHEREIN PETITIONER ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1 AND IN C.C.NO.6568/1989 AT HONBLE XVII A.C.M.M., WHEREIN PETITIONER ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER Petitioner who is convicted and sentenced in Spl.CC.No.18/2018 on the file of XXI ACJ, Bengaluru (accused No.2), 128/1993 on the file of XXI ACJ, Bengaluru (accused No.2), CC.No.1983/1987 on the file of XVII ACMM, Bengaluru (accused No.1), CC.No.6567/1989 on the file of XVII ACMM, Bengaluru (accused No.1) and CC.No.6568/1989 on the file of XVII ACMM, Bengaluru (accused No.1), has filed this petition under Section 482 r/w 428 of Cr.P.C for a direction to run the punishments concurrently. 2. This is the second petition filed by the petitioner seeking the reliefs in question. His earlier petition in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27066 CRL.P No. 3054 of 2020 Crl.P.No.6918/2016 for the same relief came to be rejected on 16.12.2016. 3. In support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that he is convicted in 6 cases and sentenced to various period of imprisonment. He was remanded to judicial custody on 28.10.2011. Since then he is in custody. Petitioner is aged 68 years. He has already spent 9 years. He is no longer able to bear the harsh environment of the jail. His earlier petition came to be dismissed. Now, he is filing the present petition on the ground that he was not given the benefit of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali (Najakat Alia)1, he has come up with this petition. 4. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following decisions: i) Iqram Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (Iqram)2 1 (2001) 6 SCC 311 2 (2023) 3 SCC 184 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27066 CRL.P No. 3054 of 2020 ii) Mr Keshavamurthy Vs. The State of Karnataka and others, (Keshavamurthy)3 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that already petition filed by the petitioner for the same relief in Crl.P.No.3865/2016 is rejected. Such being the case, this petition is not maintainable. 6. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for respondent has relied upon the following decisions: i) State of Maharastra and another Vs. Najakat alia Mubarak Ali (Najakat Alia)4 ii) Ambarish S Kapadia Vs. State of CBI, (Ambarish S Kapadia)5 7. Heard arguments and perused the record. 8. It is not in dispute that petitioner is convicted in above referred 6 cases, which are not part of the same transaction, but arising out of independent complaints filed 3 WP No.28848/2024 dated 22.11.2024 4 (2016) 6 SCC 311 5 Crl.P.Nos.3865/2016 and 6918/2016, dated 16.12.2016 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27066 CRL.P No. 3054 of 2020 against him. Section 427 Cr.P.C deals with the general rule with regard to the sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence and it provides that the subsequent sentence shall commence after expiration of the earlier sentence. It reads as follows: "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. 9. In Iqram, referred to supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India enumerated the following principles of law, which reads as under: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27066 CRL.P No. 3054 of 2020 " The principles of law that emerge re Section 427 Cr.PC are as under: (i) 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; (ii) Ordinarily the subsequent sentence would commence at the expiration of the first term of imprisonment unless the court directs the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence; (iii) The general rule is that where there are different transactions, different crime numbers and cases have been decided by the different judgments, concurrent sentence cannot be awarded under Section 427 Cr.P.C.; (iv) Under Section 427(1) of Cr.PC the court has the power and discretion to issue a direction that all the subsequent sentences run concurrently with the previous sentence, however discretion has to be exercised judiciously depending upon the nature of the offence or the offences committed and the facts in situation. However, there must be a specific direction or order by the court that the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27066 CRL.P No. 3054 of 2020 10. When there are different transaction, different crime numbers and cases have been decided by different judgments, concurrent sentence cannot be awarded under Section 427 Cr.P.C. Though under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C, the Courts are vested with discretion, it is required to be exercised judiciously. In fact in Vicky @ Vikas Vs. State (Government) of NCT of Delhi (Vicky @ Vikas)6 also, it was held that the discretion is required to be exercised judiciously. In the said decision on facts, though the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to direct the sentence to run concurrently, but specifically held that it shall not be treated as a precedent. Since already the petition filed by the petitioner in Crl.P.No.3865/2016 for the same relief is rejected, this second petition is not maintainable. Thus, both on merits as well as on the ground of maintainability, the petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the following: 6 (2020) ACR 367 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27066 CRL.P No. 3054 of 2020 ORDER (i) Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby rejected. (ii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court through e-mail. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49