Appellant denied concurrent sentences for drug offences, sentences to run consecutively

The court held that the appellant was not entitled to concurrent sentences under Section 427 of the Cr.PC. Due to the seriousness of the offences and absence of a specific order from the trial court, the sentences for two separate convictions involving significant quantities of heroin should run consecutively. The court emphasized the societal impact of drug-related crimes and denied the appellant's request for concurrent sentences, dismissing the appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sentences imposed against the appellant by two different courts in two different trials should run concurrently or consecutively.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Concurrent vs. Consecutive Sentences:
The primary issue for consideration was whether the sentences imposed against the appellant by two different courts in two different trials should run concurrently or consecutively. The appellant was convicted for two separate offences under the NDPS Act: one involving 4 kg of heroin (FIR No.134/1999) and another involving 750 grams of heroin (FIR No.43/1999). The appellant was sentenced to 12 years RI for the first offence and 15 years RI for the second offence, with no specific order from the trial court regarding whether the sentences should run concurrently or consecutively.

2. Legal Framework and Precedents:
Section 427 of the Cr.PC was pivotal in this case. According to Section 427(1), when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction, the subsequent sentence shall commence at the expiration of the previous sentence unless the court directs otherwise. Section 427(2) stipulates that if the person is already undergoing a life sentence, any subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the life sentence.

The court referenced several precedents to elucidate the principles governing concurrent and consecutive sentences:
- Mohd. Akhtar Hussain vs. Assistant Collector of Customs (1988): Emphasized that if the transactions relating to offences are different, the sentences should run consecutively.
- Ranjit Singh vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh (1991): Clarified that subsequent sentences should generally run consecutively unless directed otherwise by the court.
- V.K. Bansal vs. State of Haryana (2013): Highlighted the discretionary power of the court under Section 427(1) to direct concurrent sentences, which must be exercised judiciously.
- Neera Yadav vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2017): Reiterated that concurrent sentences are an exception and should be ordered only in appropriate cases based on the nature of the offences and the facts.
- Sharad Hiru Kolambe vs. State of Maharashtra (2018): Affirmed that subsequent sentences should run consecutively unless the court specifically directs otherwise.

3. Application of Legal Principles:
Applying these principles, the court noted that the appellant was convicted for two different transactions with different crime numbers and decided by different judgments. Therefore, the general rule was that the sentences should run consecutively. The court found no specific order from the trial court directing the sentences to run concurrently.

4. Discretionary Power of the Court:
Even if the court had the discretionary power to direct concurrent sentences under Section 427(1) of Cr.PC, it must exercise this discretion judiciously, considering the nature of the offences. The appellant was convicted for serious offences under the NDPS Act involving significant quantities of heroin. The court emphasized that those dealing in narcotic drugs have a deadly impact on society and should not be shown leniency. The interest of society as a whole must be considered in such cases.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of concurrent sentences under Section 427 of Cr.PC. Given the seriousness of the offences and the lack of a specific order from the trial court, the sentences should run consecutively. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's request for concurrent sentences was rejected.

---