Concurrent sentencing under Section 427 CrPC remains a discretionary, case-by-case power despite separate convictions from distinct transactions.

Section 427 CrPC confers a discretionary power to direct a subsequent sentence to run concurrently with an earlier sentence, and that power is available even where convictions arise from separate cases, distinct offences, or different transactions. The provision contains no universal exclusion for such situations; rather, the sentencing court must decide on the facts, including the nature of the offences, antecedents, and surrounding circumstances. Where the earlier sentence is life imprisonment, concurrency is mandatory under the statutory scheme. The Bombay High Court therefore treated concurrency under Section 427 as a case-by-case sentencing question, not barred simply because the convictions are from different incidents.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the power under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be exercised where the accused has been convicted in two or more separate cases for distinct offences arising out of different transactions or incidents; (ii) whether any universal restriction or exclusion can be read into Section 427 so as to deny the benefit of concurrent running of sentences in such cases.

Issue (i): whether the power under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be exercised where the accused has been convicted in two or more separate cases for distinct offences arising out of different transactions or incidents.

Analysis: Section 427(1) contemplates a person already undergoing imprisonment who is subsequently convicted and sentenced again, in which event the later sentence ordinarily commences after the earlier one unless the Court directs concurrency. Section 427(2) makes concurrency mandatory where the earlier sentence is imprisonment for life. The scheme of the Code shows that the Court retains sentencing discretion in appropriate cases, and that such discretion is to be exercised on the facts, nature of offences, criminal antecedents, and surrounding circumstances. The fact that the convictions arise from different cases, different offences, or different transactions does not by itself oust the statutory power.

Conclusion: the power under Section 427 is available even where the convictions are in separate cases arising out of distinct transactions or incidents, and the accused is entitled to consideration of that statutory benefit.

Issue (ii): whether any universal restriction or exclusion can be read into Section 427 so as to deny the benefit of concurrent running of sentences in such cases.

Analysis: The language of Section 427 contains no express exclusion of any class of cases once its ingredients are satisfied. The provision is beneficial in character and its discretion cannot be curtailed by judicially invented limitations. Section 31 governs multiple offences at one trial, while Section 427 governs subsequent convictions in different cases; both provisions reflect the legislative policy that concurrency may be ordered where justified, but the default rule under Section 427(1) remains consecutive operation unless the Court directs otherwise. The Court therefore rejected the proposition that distinct and separate offences in different transactions automatically bar the exercise of power.

Conclusion: no universal bar or rigid formula can be read into Section 427, and the Court must exercise discretion case by case in accordance with settled sentencing principles.

Final Conclusion: the reference was answered in favour of the accused, holding that the competent Court retains jurisdiction to consider concurrent running of sentences under Section 427 in appropriate cases, even where the convictions arise from different incidents or transactions, and the matter was sent back for disposal according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers a discretionary, beneficial power to direct concurrency of a subsequent sentence with an earlier sentence in separate cases, and that power is not excluded merely because the convictions arise from distinct offences or different transactions.

---