Delve into the realm of legal analysis as courts interpret concurrent sentences in criminal revision cases. Discover the narrow scope of revisional courts’ interference and the significance of judicially exercised discretion in ordering concurrent sentences. Stay tuned to unravel the complexities of court jurisdiction in the latest legal discourse.
Facts
- Money deposit receipts were given to depositors along with passbook, receipt, ledger accounts, etc.
- Complaint filed against accused for deceiving by offering attractive returns but not returning the deposit amount at maturity.
- Initial offence registered under Section 420 of IPC, later additional offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC added.
- Company misled depositors by falsely claiming recognition by Reserve Bank of India.
- Company collected money from depositors like a bank, promising 8 to 10% annual interest.
- Accused convicted for charges under Sections 409, 420, 120-B of IPC based on evidence and witness testimonies.
- Appellant and co-accused filed Criminal Revision Nos.95 of 2005 & 89 of 2006 against trial and appellate court orders.
- High Court upheld conviction of the appellant under Section 409 of IPC based on evidence that agents acted under his instructions.
- Deposit trust was breached by failing to refund the amount causing the offence under Section 409 of IPC.
- Appellate Court upheld the conviction and sentences by Trial Court, including rigorous imprisonment and fines.
- High Court allowed Revision in part, directing concurrent sentencing and setting aside findings of the lower courts to serve sentences one after the other.
Also Read: Analysis of Financial Statements as Acknowledgment in Limitation Act Case
Arguments
- Charges under Section 420 of IPC not made out due to lack of ‘dishonest intention’ of cheating.
- Appellant, an employee, believed to be a scapegoat for selective prosecution.
- Ingredients of Section 409 not proven as the misappropriation of the deposited amount for personal use is not established by prosecution.
- Appellant argues that being charged for both 420 and 409 offences is contradictory.
- Concurrent findings of conviction by two Courts after detailed appreciation of material and evidence.
- Arguing to support the findings recorded in the impugned judgment.
- Urging that the findings of conviction are not perverse or against the law.
- Contention that the offence under Sections 409 and 420 of the IPC has been proved rightly in the instant case.
- Asserting that the argument regarding conviction of Sections 409 and 420 being antithetical was not raised before the courts below and cannot be raised at this stage.
Also Read: Analysis of Territorial Jurisdiction in Arbitration Transfer Petition
Analysis
- The High Court in criminal revision against conviction does not have the same jurisdiction as an appellate court.
- Interference in revision is narrow, and courts should not reappreciate evidence unless the finding is completely perverse.
- The third court should not reevaluate facts already found by lower courts, unless the decision is entirely unreasonable.
- Revisional courts do not delve deeply into evidence to reverse findings; they uphold the lower courts’ judgments.
- The High Court upheld the conviction against the appellant and adjusted the sentence to run concurrently with the co-accused.
- The High Court’s direction aligns with Section 31 of the Cr.P.C, giving full discretion for concurrent sentences.
- The Supreme Court, in the case referenced, stressed that courts can order sentences to run concurrently based on the nature of the offences and the case’s circumstances.
- The discretion to order concurrent sentences should be judicially exercised and not mechanically, based on individual case merits.
- Section 397 of CrPC provides jurisdiction to review findings, sentences, or orders.
- The provision allows for assessment of correctness, legality, or propriety of such findings.
- It also includes reviewing the regularity of proceedings in inferior courts.
- The main objective is to rectify any obvious defects, errors of jurisdiction, or legal issues.
- The Court generally does not interfere with concurrent findings on pure questions of fact.
- Exceptional circumstances are required to justify departure from normal practice.
- Inferences of law from admitted and proved facts or findings affected by violation of rule of law may warrant review by the Court.
- Scope of re-appreciation of evidence by higher Court in criminal revision was discussed in the case of ‘Manju Ram Kalita vs State of Assam – (2009) 13 SCC 330’.
- Summary of observations in paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 of the judgment provided.
- Normal rule is to order the sentence to be consecutive, exception is to make the sentences concurrent
- If the court does not order concurrent sentences, they may run one after the other as directed by the court
- No conflict found in earlier judgment of Mohd. Akhtar Hussain and Section 31 CrPC
- No infirmity found in the order passed by the High Court
- Appeal is dismissed
Also Read: Interpretation of Corporate Guarantor under IBC
Case Title: MALKEET SINGH GILL Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (2022 INSC 656)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000915-000915 / 2022
