1 2025:CGHC:21361 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Judgment reserved on : 21.02.2025 Judgment delivered on : 08.05.2025 Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 152 of 2023 Sanjay Nagvanshi S/o Ladhu Ram Nagvanshi Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Chuhigadhai, Police Station- Sitapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Home Department (Jail), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan , Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police (Jail) Police Headquarter, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Jail Superintendent Central Jail Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate. For Respondents : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge C A V Judgment 1. The instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondent authorities to hold the sentence imposed upon the petitioner by judgment of conviction dated 11.03.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Sarguja (Ambikapur) in Special Session (POCSO) case No. 60/2015 which has been confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 676/2019 by this Court vide its 2 judgment dated/order dated 09.02.2022 and the conviction dated 11.03.2019 has been held proper and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed to run concurrently with the conviction order dated 22.12.2015 passed in Session Trial No. 69/2014 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO) Sarguja, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Brief facts of the case are such that on 04.04.2014 the petitioner took a minor girl to Kunkuri on the pretext of marriage and committed sexual offence for near about two to three months. On 20.06.2014 that minor girl told about all this to her family members and thereafter a report was lodged against the present petitioner. Investigation took place. Charge sheet was filed and trial commenced. On 22.12.2015 learned learned Special Judge (POCSO) Sarguja, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh passed the order in Session Trial No. 69 of 2014(Annexure P/4), whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code Simple Imprisonment for 05 years with fine amount of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount additional imprisonment for one month. Under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code Simple Imprisonment for 07 years with fine amount of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount additional imprisonment for one month. Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with fine amount of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount additional imprisonment for one month. Under Section 04 of the POCSO Act, 2012 Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with fine amount of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount additional imprisonment for one month. All the sentences will run concurrently. 3 He was released on bail vide order dated 27.07.2022 passed by this court in CRA No. 1876 of 2019 (Annexure P/2) and was directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 29th of September, 2022 and thereafter to appear before the Trial Court on a date to be given by the Registry of this Court and shall continue to appear there on all such subsequent dates as are given to him by the said court till the disposal of this appeal. However, the present petitioner got convicted and sentenced for another crime with another girl. In which it was alleged that the petitioner has committed a rape upon a minor girl on 10.05.2015. Pertaining to the facts and circumstances learned Additional Session Judge FTC, Sarguja, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh in Special Session POCSO Case No. 60/2015(Annexure P/3) convicted and sentenced the present petitioner vide judgment dated 11.03.2019 as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for 06 months with fine amount of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine amount additional one month imprisonment. Under Section 04 of the POCSO Act, 2012 Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with fine amount of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine amount additional one month imprisonment. Both the sentences will run concurrently. Against the judgment dated 11.03.2019 the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 374(2) (Annexure P/4) which got dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner in Special Session (POCSO) 4 Case NO. 60/2015 was affirmed. As per Annexure P/5 the petitioner after getting benefit of remission on completion of sentence was released with regard to the judgment passed on 22.12.2015 in Session Trial No. 69/2014. However he is in jail for the conviction and sentence in Special Session (POCSO) Case No. 60/2015. 3. Mr. Syed Majid Ali, counsel for the petitioner humbly submits before this court that the only quarry of the petitioner is that he was informed by the jail authority after completing the jail sentence in S.T. No. 69/2014 the petitioner has to again undergo the jail sentence in the conviction made to him in S.T. No. 60/2015 which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 676 of 2019 which is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. He stated that the fact cannot be brushed aside that the petitioner was sentenced in two sessions trial and total detention period for both the matters would be for 20 years and he would remain in custody for very long period, which would be very harsh upon him. As he is a young boy and detention of 20 years would adversely affect his major part of the life if he remains in custody for such a long period of time. To substantiate his submission he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Iqram Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Arising out of SLP (Cri) No. 8238 of 2022 (Annexure P/07) wherein in para 10 and 11 it has held as under:- 10. Section 427 provides that when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such 5 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. In other words, sub-section (1) of Section 427 confers a discretion on the court to direct that the subsequent sentence following a conviction shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. 11. In Mohd Zahid Vs. State through NCB, this court interpreted the provisions of Section 427 of CrPC after duly considering the precedents in the following terms: “33. Thus from the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the principles of law that emerge 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.P.C. the court has the power and discretion to issue a direction that all the subsequent sentences run 6 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.” 4. He also submits that the present issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered in Cr.M.P. No. 1304/2016 decided vide order dated 20.12.2016 in the matter of Sikander Ali and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another passed by this Court and also in WPCR No. 719 of 2021 decided vide order dated 01.08.2022 in the matter of Samsuddin Ansari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others passed by this Court, where in both the case this court has ordered that the subsequent sentences imposed upon the petitioner shall run concurrently with the other sentences imposed upon the same petitioner. Therefore, he prays that the petitioner has already remained in jail for 7 years 03 months and 15 days and hence, the respondent authorities may be directed to hold the sentences imposed to the petitioner in Session Trial No. 69/2014 and Session Trial No. 60/2015 to run concurrently in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent/State vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the Trial Court considering the overall evidences available on record has rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner by the impugned judgment which call for no interference by this Court as the petitioner committed the second offence while he was on bail and if a person already convicted under some crime again performs the same kind of crime 7 with some other person cannot be considered. 6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused the impugned judgments passed by the concerned trial court as well as other evidences placed on record with utmost circumspection. 7. Having considered the rival contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record what clearly reflects from the fact of the case is that, the petitioner has been found guilty and convicted in 02 separate criminal cases in which he has been tried and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is of 10-10 years in each case. 8. Indisputably, the petitioner had already remained in custody for a period more than 07 years in his first crime. It is also not in dispute that in view of the provisions of Section 427 of the CrPC, the petitioner has not been released inspite of having completed more than the sentence awarded in the first crime. 9. For better understanding the issue involved in the present case, it would be appropriate to reproduce the provisions of Secion 427(1) of the CrPC:- “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 on 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 8 previous sentence.” 10. In view of the provisions of Section 427 of the CrPC, since all the criminal cases were tried at different period of time, the petitioner stood convicted in each of the case separately and the judgments have been passed separately at different dates, there was no order for running of the sentences concurrently with any previous sentence and the petitioner in fact is aggrieved by this. 11.It is pertinent to note that when the petitioner was convicted and sentenced in the second case i.e. on 11.03.2019 in Session Trial No.60/2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Sarguja (Ambikapur), he did not disclosed the fact that he has been convicted in another crime i.e. on 22.12.2015 in Session Trial No. 69/14 which was passed by Special Judge (POCSO) Sarguja Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. From the pleadings and the record which has been placed earlier it appears to be a case where the petitioner has not prayed before the court for the sentence to run concurrently with the sentence which he has already undergoing against the judgment of conviction passed on an earlier occasion and it is also pertinent that the appellant did not disclosed about the previous crime even the trial was going on. Moreover Section 427 of the CrPC states that until and unless the court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence instead of consecutively. In the present case both the courts did not ordered to run the sentences concurrently. Hence the sentences to be run consecutively. 12. It is also pertinent to note that it is not a case where the 9 discretion of this court is to be exercised in favor of the petitioner whose tract record is not so good as he is a habitual offender and there are more than one case wherein he has been convicted and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for different period of time. Moreover it is also very important to note that when the petitioner committed the first crime and thereafter when he was released on temporary bail during the trial, he committed another crime that to a rape of a minor girl which in the eyes of law is a very heinous crime which could not be considered in any manner in favor of the petitioner. 13. This court finds that although the Supreme Court in the matter of Iqram Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (supra) upon which the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon has stated to run all the cases of an accused concurrently as it was a case where there was continuation of offence but in the present case the subject matter is totally different. It is not a case of continuous offence but a case where the appellant has committed rape and thereafter when he was released on temporary bail he again committed rape with another minor girl. Subsequently committing of such heinous crime does not deserves to be considered and run concurrently. 14. Therefore, the present petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed . 15. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Alfiza