Concurrent sentencing discretion under Section 427 CrPC applied to direct substantive sentences to run together.

Section 427 CrPC confers a judicial discretion to direct sentences in separate convictions to run concurrently, and that discretion must be exercised on sound principles having regard to the nature of the offences and the facts of the case. Concurrent running is not automatic, but may be ordered where the circumstances justify relief. On the facts, the SC directed the substantive sentences to run concurrently for convictions under the NDPS Act and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, while leaving the fine and default sentences unaffected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sentences imposed in two separate convictions could be directed to run concurrently under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The power under Section 427 is discretionary and must be exercised on sound judicial principles, having regard to the nature of the offences and the facts and circumstances of the case. Concurrent running is not automatic; it may be directed where the case justifies such relief. Considering that the appellant was convicted in one case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and in another under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the Court found it appropriate to order concurrency of the substantive sentences. The fine and default sentences were left unaffected.

Conclusion: The sentences were directed to run concurrently, in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: The discretion to order concurrent sentences under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must be exercised judicially on the facts of each case, and may be invoked to direct concurrent running of substantive sentences where the circumstances so warrant.

---