Highest Individual Sentence Relevant For Deciding Whether Appeal Will Be Heard By Single Or Division Bench: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has suggested that for the purpose of determining whether an appeal against conviction is to be heard by a Single Bench or a Division Bench, the relevant factor is the highest sentence imposed by the trial court, and not the cumulative total of all sentences awarded for different offences.

The Court also held that where a trial court, while awarding multiple sentences, fails to specify whether they are to run concurrently or consecutively, the benefit must go to the accused and the sentences should be prima facie presumed to run concurrently.

Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur said, "We would fail in our duty if we did not request the Registrar Listing to bring this aspect to the notice of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, with the following suggestions. Whenever any appeals against conviction or revisions against conviction are filed, and the judgment(s) of conviction are silent on whether the sentences shall run concurrently or consecutively, the Registry should consider listing the matter by primafacie treating the sentences as 'Concurrently', i.e., all the sentences shall run simultaneously."

To decide the jurisdiction, whether the Appeal/Revision against conviction should be listed before the Single Bench or the Division Bench, because the highest sentence imposed shall be counted and not the total of all the sentences, the Court added.

The Bench clarified that the observations made herein before are only for the purposes of the present case and shall not be considered as any order or directions to the Registry because it is for the Chief Justice who is the person-in-charge of all listing matters.

It directed further that a copy of this order be sent to the Registrar (Listing) of this Court to bring it to the notice of the the Chief Justice for the Lordship to consider taking a decision on the Administrative Side, being the Head of the Institution.

A Division Bench made these observations while dealing with an application filed by convict Vicky Giri, who was convicted by a Gurugram Sessions Court under Sections 392, 397, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959.

Vicky Giri was convicted by the Sessions Court at Gurugram. By judgment dated 20.10.2025 and order on sentence dated 27.10.2025, he was awarded the following punishments:

Section 392 IPC – Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of ₹10,000

Section 397 IPC – Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of ₹10,000

Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC – Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of ₹5,000

Section 25(1B)(a) Arms Act – Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with fine of ₹5,000

The trial court, however, did not clarify whether these substantive sentences would run concurrently or consecutively.

The applicant raised a limited contention that since the sentencing order was silent on concurrency or consecutiveness, the sentences should be presumed to run concurrently and not consecutively.

The High Court undertook an extensive analysis of the law governing concurrent and consecutive sentences, referring to several Supreme Court decisions, including:

Mohd. Akhtar Hussain v. Assistant Collector of Customs (1988)

State of Maharashtra v. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali (2001)

Manoj @ Pannu v. State of Haryana (2013)

O.M. Cherian v. State of Kerala (2014)

Muthuramalingam v. State (2016, Constitution Bench)

Sharad Hiru Kolambe v. State of Maharashtra (2018)

Sunil Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar v. State of U.P. (2021)

The Court noted that under Section 31 CrPC, there was a presumption that sentences would run consecutively unless directed otherwise. However, this presumption has undergone a “sea change” under Section 25 of BNSS, 2023.

"In the new statute under §25 BNSS 2023, the words, “such punishments when consisting of imprisonment to commence the one after the expiration of the other in such order as the Court may direct, unless the Court directs that such punishments shall run concurrently.” of the old §31CrPC have been omitted. Thus, the presumption that the sentences shall run consecutively, if not explicitly specified to run Concurrently, also eclipses," said the Court.

It added further that, "when there is no presumption and the statute mandates the sentences must be specified, and despite that the mandate is ignored in a sentence, then the presumption would go in favour of the accused and not in favour of the prosecution."

In the light of the above, the bench said, "the trial Court does not mention that the sentence would run concurrently or consecutively, the primafacie benefit should be given to the accused, and it should be primafacie presumed that the sentence shall run concurrently, not consecutively."

In the present case, the Court noted that the highest sentence imposed upon convict Vicky Giri was an imprisonment for seven years, which, as of date, falls in the jurisdiction of the Single Bench. As such, this appeal is to be sent to and listed before Single Bench.

If the applicant files an application for suspension of sentence, the same shall be decided by primafacie presuming that the sentence is concurrent and not consecutive, it added.

Mr. S.S.Nain, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.

Mr. Karan Sharma, DAG, Haryana

Title: VICKY GIRI ALIAS VIKKY KUMAR GIRI VS STATE OF HARYANA

Click here to read order