https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303202 Where offences arise out of a single transaction, sentences should ordinarily run concurrently rather than consecutively under Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless exceptional reasons justify a departure. The Court held that the direction for consecutive sentences was contrary to this settled principle and modified the punishment to run concurrently. The conviction was left undisturbed, but the manner of operation of the sentences was changed after taking into account the offender's age as a mitigating circumstance. The total sentence was accordingly reduced. en-us Mon, 09 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jul 2022 12:22:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303202 Where offences arise out of a single transaction, sentences should ordinarily run concurrently rather than consecutively under Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless exceptional reasons justify a departure. The Court held that the direction for consecutive sentences was contrary to this settled principle and modified the punishment to run concurrently. The conviction was left undisturbed, but the manner of operation of the sentences was changed after taking into account the offender's age as a mitigating circumstance. The total sentence was accordingly reduced. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 09 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303202