The Supreme Court was of the opinion that the default sentences imposed on a convict cannot be directed to run concurrently. In this case, the accused were con convicted under 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to imprisonment of 7/10 years. Rs. 5 Lakh was imposed on each, and in default, three years of rigorous imprisonment was ordered.
It was seen that the default sentences awarded to the convicts were on the immoderate side, given their financial conditions. While considering these contentions, the Bench of Justices UU Lalit and Ajay Rastogi noted that in Sharad Hiru Kilambe vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. It was held that the default sentence could not be directed to run concurrently. The court had noted that Sections 31 and 427 of the Code, which deal with substantive sentences, authorize the courts in certain cases to direct concurrent running of more than one sentence. But no such specification is available in Section 64 of IPC and Section 30 of the Code or any other provision dealing with power to impose a sentence of " imprisonment for non-payment of fine" or in connection with default sentence. Taking note of this, the court held that default sentences could not be directed to run concurrently.
Therefore, the court proceeded to grant relief to the present appellants and directed that the default sentences awarded to each of the appellants on three counts mentioned above shall be one year each in respect of such counts.
We offer a wide range of lawyers to cater to all your every legal needs and requirement.
Our team provides you support in managing your legal issue without any additional and hidden charges.
Once you finalise the lawyer, you can proceed with predefined time estimation & pricing.
Dedicated Case Follow-up Manager to assist you in coordination with the Lawyer.