The Kerala High Court has clarified that Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allows courts to order concurrent running of sentences, is inapplicable when a person is convicted for different offences in separate cases that stem from unrelated transactions. The judgment was delivered by Justice C. Jayachandran, who dismissed the plea of the petitioner-convict seeking concurrent running of sentences.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, B. Ajai, had been convicted in two separate criminal cases. The first conviction was by the Special Judge, NDPS, New Delhi, in a case related to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, for which he was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1 lakh. The second conviction was handed down by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mavelikkara, in a different case involving multiple offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court: Accused Cannot Demand Further Investigation, But Courts Can Act Against Unfair Probes
Ajai argued that the Magistrate should have invoked Section 427 of CrPC suo moto to allow concurrent sentencing, as failing to do so would affect his rights. He also cited the legal maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit (the act of the court shall prejudice no one) to support his claim.
Court’s Observations and Rationale
The court rejected the petitioner’s claim, stating:
"That apart, this Court also notices that the offences in question have no semblance of connection with each other. Both crimes are two different, independent instances. The previous conviction was under the NDPS Act, whereas the present case involves various IPC offences and the Arms Act. The transactions are completely different. There exists no room for giving concurrency, insofar as the running of punishment is concerned."
Section 427 CrPC provides that when a person undergoing imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction, the sentences shall run consecutively unless the court specifies that they should run concurrently. Since the Magistrate did not order concurrency in this case, the default rule of consecutive sentencing applies.
Read Also:- Drug Mafia's Reach Extends to School Kids: Kerala HC Upholds Bail Cancellation of NDPS Accused
The court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Mohd. Zahid v. State through NCB (2022), which held that concurrent sentencing cannot be granted as a general rule when cases involve separate transactions, distinct crime numbers, and different judgments.
Prosecution’s Stand
The Public Prosecutor opposed the petitioner’s plea, arguing that the standard legal principle is that sentences run consecutively unless the court explicitly orders otherwise. The Additional Solicitor General of India further noted that the petitioner’s previous conviction sentence ended on January 13, 2025, and that the absence of a concurrent sentence directive by the Magistrate was a conscious judicial decision.
Dismissal of the Petition
After considering all arguments, the High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that:
"The contention that the learned Magistrate should have suo moto invoked Section 427 CrPC is far-fetched and not liable to be recognized in law. There arises no occasion to apply the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit. This Court cannot perceive any mistake, whatsoever, on the part of the sentencing court."
The court also distinguished the present case from the Supreme Court judgment in Iqram v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), where concurrent sentencing was considered due to multiple convictions in identical cases involving similar offences.
Case Title: B Ajai v State of Kerala
Case No: CRL.MC NO.8795 OF 2024