Subsequent Sentences Imposed After First Life Sentence Will Run Concurrently Even Without Declaration By Court: Kerala HC
|The Kerala High Court held that when the first conviction is a life sentence, any subsequent sentences—whether life or a fixed term—will automatically run concurrently by law, even without a declaration by the Court as provided under Section 427(2) of the CrPC.
The Court clarified that sentences imposed on the petitioner after his initial sentencing should run concurrently with the first sentence. Noting it had previously observed that no specific declaration was required in such cases, the Court called it “unfortunate” that prison authorities did not consider this legal proposition when denying the petitioner’s request for ordinary leave in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) case.
A Single Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas stated, “The distinction between Section 427(1) and 427(2) is that under sub-section (1) the first sentence of imprisonment imposed ought to be only for a term and not for life, while under sub-section (2), the first sentence imposed ought to have been for life. When the first conviction is for life, the subsequent sentences, irrespective of whether it is for life or only for a term, will run concurrently by statutory operation, even without a declaration by the court.”
Advocate K. Rakesh appeared for the petitioner, while Public Prosecutor Sreeja V. represented the respondents.
The Petitioner was a life convict who had been in prison for the last 13 years. In the meantime, he was convicted in two other cases, both for offences under the NDPS Act and was sentenced to imprisonment for a term. In one of the subsequent two cases, he was sentenced to prison time as well. However, in the subsequent two judgments, there was no direction that the sentences would run concurrently with the earlier life sentence.
Due to the absence of such a direction, the petitioner was denied the grant of ordinary leave from the prison, as the subsequent sentences were for the offences under the NDPS Act.
The High Court noted that by virtue of the amendment to Rule 7 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014, the prison authorities were denying ordinary leave to the petitioner due to his conviction under the NDPS Act.
“Ordinary leave is denied stating that the sentence of imprisonment for the subsequent two convictions under the NDPS Act was not ordered to run concurrently and since those sentences have not expired he is ineligible for ordinary leave,” it further noted.
The Bench explained that as per Section 427(1) of the Cr.P.C, sentences imposed upon an accused, if not specifically directed, would run consecutively. However, Section 427(2) of the CrPC provided that if the first conviction imposed a sentence of imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentences, whether for a term or for life, would run concurrently.
Consequently, the Court observed, “It is evident that, even without a declaration or direction by a court of law, the sentences imposed on the petitioner subsequently ought to run concurrently. Unfortunately, despite this Court having earlier itself, specifically observed that a declaration is not necessary, the prison authorities have not taken the said proposition of law into reckoning. All the more disheartening is the circumstance that when a letter was issued by the prisoner to the District Judge, pointing out his entitlement, which letter was forwarded to the Registry of this Court, the prisoner was directed to knock at the doors of this Court on its judicial side to get such a declaration. Even the Registry of this Court failed to note the settled law on the issue. As correctly pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae, the prisoner remains a helpless lot.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Ali @ Aliyar v. State Of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:77394)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate K. Rakesh
Respondents: Public Prosecutor Sreeja V.; Amicus Curiae Mitha Sudhindran