Revisional interference is limited by perversity and jurisdictional error; concurrent sentence discretion must be exercised judicially.

Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC is narrow and is meant to correct patent defect, jurisdictional error, or legal impropriety, not to reappreciate evidence as in a regular appeal. Concurrent findings of conviction are not to be interfered with unless they are perverse or affected by a clear error of law or procedure, so the conviction was left undisturbed. The power under Section 31 CrPC to direct sentences for offences at the same trial to run concurrently is discretionary and must be exercised judicially on the facts and nature of the offences; the concurrent sentence direction was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the revisional court should interfere with concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the courts below; (ii) whether the direction that sentences should run concurrently was legally sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the revisional court should interfere with concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the courts below.

Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is narrow and is meant to correct a patent defect, jurisdictional error, or legal impropriety. It is not to be exercised as if the court were hearing a regular appeal by reappreciating evidence at length. Where two courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact after appreciation of evidence, interference is warranted only if the findings are perverse or vitiated by a clear error of law or procedure.

Conclusion: The concurrent findings of conviction were not liable to be disturbed in revision.

Issue (ii): whether the direction that sentences should run concurrently was legally sustainable.

Analysis: Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vests discretion in the court to order sentences for two or more offences at the same trial to run concurrently. The discretion has to be exercised judicially having regard to the nature of the offences and the facts of the case. The direction made by the High Court was consistent with that discretion.

Conclusion: The direction for concurrent running of sentences was upheld.

Final Conclusion: No ground was found to interfere with the conviction, and the sentence direction made by the High Court was also sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fact are not to be interfered with in revision absent perversity or jurisdictional error, and the power to order sentences to run concurrently under Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must be exercised judicially on the facts and circumstances of the case.

---