Magistrate Shall Specify Whether Sentences Awarded Would Run Concurrently Or Consecutively in The Order: SC [Read Judgment]

In this case Magistrate convicted Gagan Kumar under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. For Section 279 IPC, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and for Section 304A IPC, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The order of the Magistrate did not specify whether sentences awarded by her, would run consecutively or concurrently. The Appellate Court and the High court affirmed this order.

The sole issue raised in the appeal before the Apex court was whether the Judicial Magistrate while passing the order of sentence erred in not mentioning therein as to whether the two punishments awarded to the convict under Section 279 and Section 304¬A IPC would run concurrently or consecutively.

The bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari noted that, Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes it is mandatory to specify as to whether the sentences awarded to the accused would run concurrently or consecutively when the accused is convicted for more than one offence in a trial. The bench said:

"It was necessary for the Magistrate to have ensured compliance of Section 31 of the Code when she convicted and sentenced the appellant for two offences in a trial and inflicted two punishments for each offence, namely, Section 279 and Section 304-A IPC. . In such a situation, it was necessary for the Magistrate to have specified in the order by taking recourse to Section 31 of the Code as to whether the punishment of sentence of imprisonment so awarded by her for each offence would run concurrently or consecutively.. Indeed, it being a legal requirement contemplated under Section 31 of the Code, the Magistrate erred in not ensuring its compliance while inflicting the two punishments to the appellant. If the Magistrate failed in her duty, the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court should have noticed this error committed by the Magistrate and accordingly should have corrected it. It was, however, not done and hence interference is called for to that extent."

The bench finally disposed the appeal by holding that the sentences awarded to the accused would run "concurrently".

Read Judgment