# Santosh v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 722
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 11627 of 2025
- **Bench:** Siddharth, Avnish Saxena
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/santosh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53631
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 of
consecutive or concurrent running of sentence
by the trial Judge while convicting the petitioner
simultaneously in six cases led to travesty of
justice and long incarceration in jail.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
226- The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Sections 265-G & 427(1)
-
Petitioner convicted in six cases on the
same
date
ands
sentenced
for
imprisonment of one years six months in
each case, leading to his incarceration of
nine years in jail- Trial court not exercised
the discretion under Section 427 Cr. P.C-
In absence of no direction for running the
sentences
concurrently
the
petitioner
7 All. Santosh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
723
would suffer incarceration consecutively
in six cases for a term of nine years - Life
and liberty of the petitioner will be
jeopardised if his grievance not redressed
- Sentence of one year and six months
imprisonment in all the six session cases,
shall run concurrently - Petition allowed

Held- Accused petitioner has been made to
suffer long incarceration of nine years, merely
because the trial court has not exercised the
discretion, whether the sentences shall run
consecutively or concurrently - Life and liberty
of the petitioner will be jeopardised if his
grievance is not redressed in this writ petition -
The sentence of one year and six months
imprisonment awarded to the petitioner in all
the six session cases, shown in the chart, shall
run concurrently. (Para 12 & 13) (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Iqram Vs. State of U.P (2023) 3 SCC
184;Satnam Singh Puransing Gill Vs. State of
Maharastram 2009 SCC Online Bom 52

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950- The Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Section 427(1) Cr.P.C; Discretion not exercised;
Life and liberty jeopardised; Sentences run
consecutively or concurrently

Case Arising From

S
r
.
N
o
.
Ses
sion
s
Cas
e
No.
Cas
e
Cri
me
No.
Poli
ce
Stat
ion
U
nd
er
Se
cti
on
D
at
e
of
Ju
dg
m
en
t
Sen
tenc
e
Fine
Dep
osit
ed
on
1
2559
/202
3
Case
Crim
e
No.
375/
2022
Jaw
an,
Distr
ict
Aliga
rh
Se
cti
on
13
6
of
El
ec
tri
06
-
01
-
20
24
Impr
ison
men
t of
1
year
, 6
mon
ths
2504-
2025
cit
y
Ac
t,
20
03
and
Fine
of
Rs.
5000
/-.
In
defa
ult,
6
mon
ths
impr
ison
men
t.
2
2560
/202
3
Case
Crim
e
No.
10/2
023
Jaw
an,
Distr
ict
Aliga
rh
Se
cti
on
13
6
of
El
ec
tri
cit
y
Ac
t,
20
03
06
-
01
-
20
24
Impr
ison
men
t of
1
year
, 6
mon
ths
and
Fine
of
Rs.
5000
/-.
In
defa
ult,
6
mon
ths
impr
ison
men
t.
2504-
2025
3
2562
/202
3
Case
Crim
e
No.
379/
2022
Jaw
an,
Distr
ict
Aliga
rh
Se
cti
on
13
6
of
El
ec
tri
cit
y
Ac
t,
20
03
06
-
01
-
20
24
Impr
ison
men
t of
1
year
, 6
mon
ths
and
Fine
of
Rs.
5000
/-.
In
defa
ult,
2504-
2025
724 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
6
mon
ths
impr
ison
men
t.
4
2565
/202
3
Case
Crim
e
No.
374/
2022
Jaw
an,
Distr
ict
Aliga
rh
Se
cti
on
13
6
of
El
ec
tri
cit
y
Ac
t,
20
03
06
-
01
-
20
24
Impr
ison
men
t of
1
year
, 6
mon
ths
and
Fine
of
Rs.
5000
/-.
In
defa
ult,
6
mon
ths
impr
ison
men
t.
2504-
2025
5
2566
/202
3
Case
Crim
e
No.
361/
2022
Jaw
an,
Distr
ict
Aliga
rh
Se
cti
on
13
6
of
El
ec
tri
cit
y
Ac
t,
20
03
06
-
01
-
20
24
Impr
ison
men
t of
1
year
, 6
mon
ths
and
Fine
of
Rs.
5000
/-.
In
defa
ult,
6
mon
ths
impr
ison
men
t.
2504-
2025
6
2568
/202
Case
Crim
Jaw
an,
Se
cti
06
-
Impr
ison
2504-
3
e
No.
06/2
023
Distr
ict
Aliga
rh
on
13
6
of
El
ec
tri
cit
y
Ac
t,
20
03
01
-
20
24
men
t of
1
year
, 6
mon
ths
and
Fine
of
Rs.
5000
/-.
In
defa
ult,
6
mon
ths
impr
ison
men
t.
2025

Appearances for Parties
Counsel
for
Petitioner
:-
Ankit
Kumar
Singh,Vikas Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Judgment/Order of the High Court

## Text

722 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
inflicted brick blow on Lakhan. Therefore,
their role of the appellants in the incident,
which has rightly been considered by the
trial judge. Hence, we do not find any
ground of interference in the order of
conviction.

37. The only point of consideration is
whether the youthful offenders/appellants
are to be punished like an adult.

38. Section 63 of 1951 Act, though
provides for joint trial of child and adult,
but the sentence, if any, is to be awarded to
the child in accordance with Section 33 of
the Act. The learned trial judge though
considered the surviving appellants above
12 years of age but had ignored to apply the
provisions of Uttar Pradesh Children Act,
1951 in awarding punishment.

39. Section 27 of the Act further
clarifies that a child, who is 12 years of age
or upward may be committed to prison
when the court certifies that the child is (1)
so unruly, (2) so depraved a character that
he is not fit to be sent to an 'approved
school'. The trial judge has not even
considered this aspect of punishment and
sent the appellants to the prison.

40. Therefore, we are of the
considerate view that the appellants who
were child and youthful offenders at the
time of incident though rightly been
considered to be involved in the offence of
being a member of unlawful assembly but
incorrectly being sentenced as an adult.

41. Therefore, the appeal is partly
allowed. The conviction of accusedappellants being youthful offenders is
upheld but their sentences are being
reduced to period already undergone in
Sessions Trial No. 240 of 1982, State Vs.
Kanhaiya and 4 others, under Section 302
read with Section 149 and Section 147 IPC
in case crime no. 203 of 1982, P.S.
Bhelupur, District Varanasi.

42. Office is directed to return the
trial court's record along with a copy of this
judgment to the trial court within ten days.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 722
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
THE HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 11627 of 2025

Santosh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ankit Kumar Singh, Vikas Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether non exercise of discretion u/s 427 (1)
of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 of
consecutive or concurrent running of sentence
by the trial Judge while convicting the petitioner
simultaneously in six cases led to travesty of
justice and long incarceration in jail.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
226- The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Sections 265-G & 427(1)
-
Petitioner convicted in six cases on the
same
date
ands
sentenced
for
imprisonment of one years six months in
each case, leading to his incarceration of
nine years in jail- Trial court not exercised
the discretion under Section 427 Cr. P.C-
In absence of no direction for running the
sentences
concurrently
the
petitioner
7 All. Santosh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
723
would suffer incarceration consecutively
in six cases for a term of nine years - Life
and liberty of the petitioner will be
jeopardised if his grievance not redressed
- Sentence of one year and six months
imprisonment in all the six session cases,
shall run concurrently - Petition allowed

Held- Accused petitioner has been made to
suffer long incarceration of nine years, merely
because the trial court has not exercised the
discretion, whether the sentences shall run
consecutively or concurrently - Life and liberty
of the petitioner will be jeopardised if his
grievance is not redressed in this writ petition -
The sentence of one year and six months
imprisonment awarded to the petitioner in all
the six session cases, shown in the chart, shall
run concurrently. (Para 12 & 13) (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Iqram Vs. State of U.P (2023) 3 SCC
184;Satnam Singh Puransing Gill Vs. State of
Maharastram 2009 SCC Online Bom 52

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950- The Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Section 427(1) Cr.P.C; Discretion not exercised;
Life and liberty jeopardised; Sentences run
consecutively or concurrently

Case Arising From

S
r
.
N
o
.
Ses
sion
s
Cas
e
No.
Cas
e
Cri
me
No.
Poli
ce
Stat
ion
U
nd
er
Se
cti
on
D
at
e
of
Ju
dg
m
en
t
Sen
tenc
e
Fine
Dep
osit
ed
on
1
2559
/202
3
Case
Crim
e
No.
375/
2022
Jaw
an,
Distr
ict
Aliga
rh
Se
cti
on
13
6
of
El
ec
tri
06
-
01
-
20
24
Impr
ison
men
t of
1
year
, 6
mon
ths
2504-
2025
cit
y
Ac
t,
20
03
and
Fine
of
Rs.
5000
/-.
In
defa
ult,
6
mon
ths
impr
ison
men
t.
2
2560
/202
3
Case
Crim
e
No.
10/2
023
Jaw
an,
Distr
ict
Aliga
rh
Se
cti
on
13
6
of
El
ec
tri
cit
y
Ac
t,
20
03
06
-
01
-
20
24
Impr
ison
men
t of
1
year
, 6
mon
ths
and
Fine
of
Rs.
5000
/-.
In
defa
ult,
6
mon
ths
impr
ison
men
t.
2504-
2025
3
2562
/202
3
Case
Crim
e
No.
379/
2022
Jaw
an,
Distr
ict
Aliga
rh
Se
cti
on
13
6
of
El
ec
tri
cit
y
Ac
t,
20
03
06
-
01
-
20
24
Impr
ison
men
t of
1
year
, 6
mon
ths
and
Fine
of
Rs.
5000
/-.
In
defa
ult,
2504-
2025
724 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
6
mon
ths
impr
ison
men
t.
4
2565
/202
3
Case
Crim
e
No.
374/
2022
Jaw
an,
Distr
ict
Aliga
rh
Se
cti
on
13
6
of
El
ec
tri
cit
y
Ac
t,
20
03
06
-
01
-
20
24
Impr
ison
men
t of
1
year
, 6
mon
ths
and
Fine
of
Rs.
5000
/-.
In
defa
ult,
6
mon
ths
impr
ison
men
t.
2504-
2025
5
2566
/202
3
Case
Crim
e
No.
361/
2022
Jaw
an,
Distr
ict
Aliga
rh
Se
cti
on
13
6
of
El
ec
tri
cit
y
Ac
t,
20
03
06
-
01
-
20
24
Impr
ison
men
t of
1
year
, 6
mon
ths
and
Fine
of
Rs.
5000
/-.
In
defa
ult,
6
mon
ths
impr
ison
men
t.
2504-
2025
6
2568
/202
Case
Crim
Jaw
an,
Se
cti
06
-
Impr
ison
2504-
3
e
No.
06/2
023
Distr
ict
Aliga
rh
on
13
6
of
El
ec
tri
cit
y
Ac
t,
20
03
01
-
20
24
men
t of
1
year
, 6
mon
ths
and
Fine
of
Rs.
5000
/-.
In
defa
ult,
6
mon
ths
impr
ison
men
t.
2025

Appearances for Parties
Counsel
for
Petitioner
:-
Ankit
Kumar
Singh,Vikas Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Judgment/Order of the High Court

(Delivered by Hon'ble Avnish Saxena, J.)

1. The point of concern in the present
writ petition preferred under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India is for issuance of
direction to the Jail Superintendent District
Jail Aligarh for concurrently running of
sentence imposed in six cases arising out of
theft of electricity equipment, wherein the
petitioner was sentenced on admitting the
guilt under plea bargaining.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved, as the
trial Judge while convicting the petitioner
in six cases on the same date has sentenced
the accused for imprisonment of one years
six months in each case, leading to his
incarceration of nine years in jail, due to
non exercise of discretion provided under
Section 427(1) Cr.P.C.
7 All. Santosh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
725

3. The six cases in which the
petitioner
has
been
convicted
and
sentenced, are tabulated below:-

S
r
.
N
o
.
Ses
sio
ns
Ca
se
No.
Ca
se
Cr
im
e
No
.
Po
lic
e
St
ati
on
Un
der
Sec
tio
n
Da
te
of
Ju
dg
me
nt
Sent
ence
Fi
ne
D
ep
os
-
it
ed
o
n
1 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1 255
9/2
023
Ca
se
Cri
me
No
.
37
5/2
02
2
Ja
wa
n,
Di
str
ict
-
Al
ig
ar
h

Sec
tio
n
13
6
of
Ele
ctri
cit
y
Act
,
20
03
0601202
4
Impr
ison
ment
of 1
year,
6
mont
hs
And
Fine
of
Rs.
5000
/-.
In
defa
ult, 6
mont
hs
impr
ison
ment
.
25
-
04
-
20
25
2 256
0/2
023
Ca
se
Cri
me
No
.
Ja
wa
n,
Di
str
ict
Sec
tio
n
13
6
of
0601202
4
Impr
ison
ment
of 1
year,
6
25
-
04
-
20
25
10/
20
23
-
Al
ig
ar
h

Ele
ctri
cit
y
Act
,
20
03
mont
hs
and
Fine
of
Rs.
5000
/-.
In
defa
ult, 6
mont
hs
impr
ison
ment
.
3 256
2/2
023
Ca
se
Cri
me
No
.
37
9/2
02
2
Ja
wa
n,
Di
str
ict
-
Al
ig
ar
h

Sec
tio
n
13
6
of
Ele
ctri
cit
y
Act
,
20
03
0601202
4
Impr
ison
ment
of 1
year,
6
mont
hs
and
Fine
of
Rs.
5000
/-.
In
defa
ult, 6
mont
hs
impr
ison
ment
25
-
04
-
20
25
4 256
5/2
023
Ca
se
Cri
me
No
.
Ja
wa
n,
Di
str
ict
Sec
tio
n
13
6
of
0601202
4
Impr
ison
ment
of 1
year,
6
25
-
04
-
20
25
726 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
37
4/2
02
2

-
Al
ig
ar
h

Ele
ctri
cit
y
Act
,
20
03
mont
hs
and
Fine
of
Rs.
5000
/-.
In
defa
ult, 6
mont
hs
impr
ison
ment
.

5 256
6/2
023
Ca
se
Cri
me
No
.
36
1/2
02
2
Ja
wa
n,
Di
str
ict
-
Al
ig
ar
h

Sec
tio
n
13
6
of
Ele
ctri
cit
y
Act
,
20
03
0601202
4
Impr
ison
ment
of 1
year,
6
mont
hs
and
Fine
of
Rs.
5000
/-.
In
defa
ult, 6
mont
hs
impr
ison
ment
.

25
-
04
-
20
25
6 256
8/2
023
Ca
se
Cri
Ja
wa
n,
Sec
tio
n
0601202
Impr
ison
ment
25
-
04
me
No
.
06/
20
23
Di
str
ict
-
Al
ig
ar
h
13
6
of
Ele
ctri
cit
y
Act
,
20
03
4
of 1
year,
6
mont
hs
and
Fine
of
Rs.
5000
/-.
In
defa
ult, 6
mont
hs
impr
ison
ment
-
20
25

4. Sri Ankit Kumar Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the
discretion provided under Section 427(1)
Cr.P.C. has not been exercised by the trial
Judge. The petitioner has confessed the
crime on plea bargaining, considering that
in all the cases the petitioner would be
released after one and half years of
imprisonment, as all the cases have been
lodged by the police. The non exercise of
discretion of consecutive or concurrent
running of sentence by the trial Judge while
convicting the petitioner simultaneously in
six cases led to travesty of justice and long
incarceration in jail. He has relied on the
case of Iqram Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh1.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits
that Section 427 (1) Cr.P.C. provides the
principle
of
running
of
sentence
consecutively, unless the court directs the
subsequent sentence to run concurrently
with the previous sentence. The petitioner
is apparently a habitual offender, who is
7 All. Santosh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
727
convicted for theft of electricity equipment.
He was apprehended by the police and
accused has pleaded guilty and has been
convicted accordingly.

6.
We
have
given
thoughtful
consideration to the rival submissions made
by the parties and perused the record.

7. The perusal of the judgements of
conviction and sentence clearly shows that
the order of conviction in six cases,
detailed above have been passed by the
same Judge, on the same date and on the
basis of plea bargaining, on admission of
guilt. The sentence passed in each case
evinces same sentence with the direction
of set off the period of detention
undergone by the petitioner in the case,
in view of Section 428 Cr.P.C. but the
trial Judge has not exercised the
discretion provided under Section 427
Cr.P.C. directing concurrent running of
sentences, despite the fact that all the
convictions have been recorded and
sentences awarded on the same date
which infers that the subsequent orders
of
punishment
were
within
the
knowledge of the Trial Judge.

8. The same issue has been dealt with
by the Supreme Court in the case of Iqram
Vs. State of U.P. (Supra)2, while dealing
with the theft of electricity equipment
wherein, in nine cases, the accused was
sentenced without exercise of discretion
whether
the
sentences
shall
run
consecutively
or
concurrently.
The
Supreme Court has intervened in the matter
and considered that the right to personal
liberty is a precious and inalienable right
recognised by the Constitution, which
requires protection in the exercise of writ
jurisdiction. The relevant paragraphs 6 to
13 are reiterated underneath:-

"6. The appellant is in jail for a
period of three years. The appellant moved
a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, being habeas corpus
Writ Petition No. 460 of 2021, before the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The
High Court noted that the writ petition was
filed on the premise that the sentences of
the appellant in nine separate and distinct
cases
should
run
concurrently.
The
grievance of the appellant was that the jail
authorities were not justified in treating the
sentences to be consecutive.

7. The Division Bench [Iqram v.
State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 875] of
the High Court has come to the conclusion
that in view of the provisions of Section 427
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
("CrPC"),
each
subsequent
term
of
conviction has to commence at the
expiration of the imprisonment currently
being undergone by the appellant.

8. The net consequence of the
position, as it emerges, is that the appellant
would have to undergo a total term of
imprisonment of 18 years in respect of the
nine convictions for offences under Section
136 of the Electricity Act and cognate
provisions.

9. The plea bargain was with
reference to the provisions of Chapter XXIA of the CrPC. Section 265-G stipulates
that the judgment delivered by the court
shall be final and no appeal (except a
special leave petition under Article 136 and
a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution) shall lie in any court
against such a judgment.

10. Section 427 provides that
when a person already undergoing a
sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a
subsequent conviction to imprisonment or
imprisonment for life, such imprisonment
or imprisonment for life shall commence at
the expiration of the imprisonment to which
728 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
he has been previously sentenced, unless
the court directs that the subsequent
sentence shall run concurrently with such
previous sentence. In other words, subsection (1) of Section 427 confers a
discretion on the court to direct that the
subsequent sentence following a conviction
shall run concurrently with the previous
sentence.

11. In Mohd. Zahid v. State
[Mohd. Zahid v. State, (2022) 12 SCC 426]
, this Court interpreted the provisions of
Section 427CrPC after duly considering the
precedents in the following terms : (SCC p.
440, para 17

"17. Thus from the aforesaid
decisions of this Court, the principles of
law that emerge are as under:-

17.1.
If
a
person
already
undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is
sentenced on a subsequent conviction to
imprisonment, such subsequent term of
imprisonment would normally commence at
the expiration of the imprisonment to which
he was previously sentenced.

17.2. Ordinarily the subsequent
sentence would commence at the expiration
of the first term of imprisonment unless the
court directs the subsequent sentence to run
concurrently with the previous sentence.

17.3. The general rule is that
where there are different transactions,
different crime numbers and cases have
been decided by the different judgments,
concurrent sentence cannot be awarded
under Section 427CrPC.

17.4. Under Section 427(1)CrPC
the court has the power and discretion to
issue a direction that all the subsequent
sentences
run
concurrently
with
the
previous sentence, however discretion has
to be exercised judiciously depending upon
the nature of the offence or the offences
committed and the facts in situation.
However, there must be a specific direction
or order by the court that the subsequent
sentence to run concurrently with the
previous sentence."

12. The trial Judge, in the present
case, granted a set-off within the ambit of
Section 428/Section 31 CrPC. No specific
direction was issued by the trial court
within the ambit of Section 427(1) so as to
allow the subsequent sentences to run
concurrently. All the convictions took place
on the same day.

13. Once the petitioner espoused
the remedy of moving a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution, the High
Court ought to have noticed the serious
miscarriage of justice which would occur
consequent upon the trial court not having
exercised specifically its discretion within
the ambit of Section 427(1). When the
appellant moved the High Court, he was
aggrieved by the conduct of the jail
authorities in construing the direction of
the trial court to mean that each of the
sentences would run consecutively at the
end of the term of previous sentence and
conviction. The High Court ought to have
intervened in the exercise of its jurisdiction
by setting right the miscarriage of justice
which would occur in the above manner,
leaving
the
appellant
to
remain
incarcerated for a period of 18 years in
respect of his conviction and sentence in
the nine Sessions trials for offences
essentially under the Electricity Act."

9. The petitioner by judgment and
sentence dated 6th January, 2024 passed in
one
case
has
been
punished
with
imprisonment of one and half years of
judicial confinement. The trial court has not
exercised the discretion provided under
Section 427 Cr.P.C., which is required to be
exercised at the time of subsequent
conviction. Consequently in absence of no
direction
for
running
the
sentences
7 All. Santosh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
729
concurrently, the accused-petitioner would
suffer incarceration consecutively in six
cases for a term of nine years. This will
adversely affect his right to life and
personal liberty.

10. To elaborate further the provision
of Section 427 Cr.P.C., deals with two
aspects of legislative intent. These are, (i)
whether it is necessary for the trial court to
pass an order under Section 427 Cr.P.C.;
and (ii) how to exercise the discretion. We
are not concerned with the latter in the
present matter, but in our view, it would be
obligatory on the Trial Court to exercise the
discretion provided under Section 427
Cr.P.C., when read in conformity with
Sections 235(2) and 236 Cr.P.C., which
deals with the previous conviction and
imposition
of
sentence,
needless
to
elaborate.
We
further
considered
it
necessary to quote the view of the larger
Bench of Bombay High Court in Satnam
Singh Puransing Gill Vs. State of
Maharastram3,
while
answering
the
question, "whether power under section
427 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973
can
be
exercised
when
the
conviction of the accused is in two or
more cases for distinct and separate
offences
arising
out
of
different
transactions/incidents?", the larger Bench
has opined in following words:-

"........... It is a legislative
mandate which operates on its own force.
In contra-distinction to this provision,
Section 427(1) of the Code vests discretion
in the Court, which has to be exercised
judiciously and in conformity with the
settled principles, to direct whether the
sentence passed on conviction in the
subsequent trial will run concurrently or
consecutively with the previous sentence
awarded to the accused. The Legislature,
thus, has made it obligatory upon the Court
to exercise such discretion. A bare reading
of the Section does not contemplate even an
application by convict or an accused in that
behalf. The legislative intent requires the
Court to act on its own as sentencing is
primarily the duty of the Court and it is
expected
to
consider
all
facets
of
sentencing policy while passing an order as
envisaged under Section 427(1) of the
Code. It is only the subsequent conviction
and sentence in case of a person already
undergoing a sentence of imprisonment in a
previous conviction that the provisions of
this Section would operate. Expression 'the
Court' appearing at the end of Section
427(1) of the Code obviously refers to the
Court of competent jurisdiction which deals
with
the
imposition
of
sentence
of
imprisonment
in
a
subsequent
conviction............"

11. The sentence provided under
Section 136(1) of Electricity Act, 2003 is
'imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years or with fine or with
both' and sub-section(2) of Section 136 of
the Act provides that 'If a person, having
been convicted of an offence punishable
under sub-section (1) is again guilty of an
offence punishable under that sub-section,
he shall be punishable for the second or
subsequent
offence
for
a
term
of
imprisonment which shall not be less than
six months but which may extend to five
years and shall also be liable to fine which
shall not be less than ten thousand rupees'.

12. The accused petitioner has been
made to suffer long incarceration of nine
years, merely because the trial court has not
exercised the discretion, whether the
sentences
shall
run
consecutively
or
concurrently. The conviction has been
recorded under plea bargaining, as per
730 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 265-G of Cr.P.C. against which no
appeal lies, but the writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

13. Hence, we are of the considered
view that the life and liberty of the
petitioner will be jeopardised if his
grievance is not redressed in this writ
petition. Thus, the writ petition is allowed.
The sentence of one year and six months
imprisonment awarded to the petitioner in
all the six session cases, shown in the chart,
shall run concurrently. The fine has been
deposited by the petitioner, per enclosed
receipts.

14. The Registry to inform the District
Jail, Aligarh to release the petitioner-
Santosh,
considering
the
concurrent
running of sentences.

15. The copy of this judgment shall
also be sent to Additional District and
Sessions Judge/Special Judge E.C. Act,
Aligarh and learned District Judge Aligarh
for ensuring compliance.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 730
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14242 of 2025

Nitesh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Devottam Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.
Issue for Consideration
Remedy
against
the
impugned
order
whereby
the
vehicle
of
the
petitioner
confiscated under section 5(a) of The Uttar
Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
226- The Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow
Slaughter Act. 1955 - Section 5 (a) - The
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section
397- Vehicle of the petitioner was seized
by the police - Impugned order to
confiscate the vehicle of the petitioner
was passed - U.P. Prevention of Cow
Slaughter Act, 1955 does not provide any
forum of appeal or revision against the
order of confiscation regarding the seized
vehicle passed by the District Magistrate -
if any judicial or quasi judicial order is
passed against a party, then he must have
a forum to vindicate his grievances. A
party cannot be left in lurch in case any
such order is passed against him - the said
lacuna which occurred due to oversight of
the legislature was rectified later on by
issuing a notification dated 15.10.2024.
Petition disposed with liberty to approach
the proper forum for filing a criminal
revision.

Held-
Criminal
revision
before
Divisional
Commissioner
alone
will
lie
against
the
confiscation order passed by the District
Magistrate in U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter
Act, 1955 - Criminal writ against the impugned
order not maintainable. (Para 9) (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9028 of 2021
(Mustakeem Begum vs. State of U.P. and 3 Ors)

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950- The Uttar
Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act.
1955 - The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973

List of Keywords
Vehicle confiscation order; Legality of action
under section 5-A; Criminal revision will lie;
Against the confiscation order in U.P. Prevention
of
Cow
Slaughter
Act,
1955