Concurrent sentencing under Section 31 CrPC applied where multiple convictions arose in the same trial, while conviction on merits was upheld.

Section 31 CrPC requires the sentencing court, where a person is convicted of more than one offence in the same trial, to specify whether the terms of imprisonment will run concurrently or consecutively. The sentencing order omitted that direction, and the omission was treated as an error that should have been corrected in appeal and revision; the substantive sentences were therefore directed to run concurrently. On the merits, no sufficient basis was shown to disturb the concurrent findings of three courts that had accepted the prosecution case, so the conviction and sentence were otherwise upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sentences imposed for convictions under two offences in the same trial were required to be directed to run concurrently or consecutively under Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) whether there was any ground to interfere with the conviction on merits.

Issue (i): Whether the sentences imposed for convictions under two offences in the same trial were required to be directed to run concurrently or consecutively under Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Section 31 of the Code requires the sentencing court, when a person is convicted for more than one offence in a trial, to specify whether the punishments of imprisonment are to run concurrently or consecutively. The sentencing order did not address this requirement. The omission was an error that should have been noticed and corrected by the appellate and revisional courts. Having regard to the facts and the nature of the controversy, the appropriate course was to direct the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

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

Issue (ii): Whether there was any ground to interfere with the conviction on merits.

Analysis: Three courts had, on appreciation of evidence, found the prosecution case proved. No sufficient basis was made out to disturb those findings, and the challenge on merits was not pressed with seriousness.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence on merits were upheld against the Appellant.

Final Conclusion: The conviction remained intact, but the sentencing order was modified so that the substantive terms of imprisonment would operate concurrently.

---