# SENTENCES AND PUNISHMENTS

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 24/VIIh-22
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1951-03-17
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 24/VIIh-22
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sentences-and-punishments-163578
- **Pages:** 1

## Text

343
41.
SENTENCES AND PUNISHMENTS
(i)
In cases of dacoity
C.L. No. 24/VIIh-22 and 25/VIIh-22 dated 17th March, 1951
Sessions Judges sometimes convict accused persons under section 395, read with
section 397 of the Indian Penal Code although there is no evidence that such persons had,
at the time of committing the dacoity, used any deadly weapon or caused grievous hurt to
any person or attempted to cause death or grievous hurt to any person. The language of
section 397 is quite clear and the provisions of that section should be carefully borne in
mind before applying that section to the case of an accused person found guilty of the
offence of robbery or dacoity.
C.L. No. 42/IV-h-22 dated 4th May, 1956
Inadequate sentences should on no account be passed in dacoity and other allied
cases. The attention of all Session Judges is drawn to the observation made, in this
connection, by their Lordships Hon'ble Mr. Justice James and Hon'ble Mr. Justice
Mukerjee in their judgment in Criminal Appeal no. 1150 of 1951, Om Prakash and others
versus State (copy forwarded with C.L.).
C.L. No. 52 dated 19th June, 1956
The Court had occasion to see that in a sessions trial where the accused were
found guilty of four dacoities under section 395, Indian Penal Code the sentences of
seven years' imprisonment passed in respect of each of them were ordered to run
concurrently.
Normally sentences for two or more offences should be consecutive and should
not be made concurrent as a matter of course or without good reasons. It is also to be
noted that the fact that the offences are committed in the course of one and the same
transaction does not mean that the sentences for them should be concurrent or that the
accused should not suffer separately for each offence. In this connection, the attention of
all Sessions Judges and Magistrates is also drawn to the case State versus Khuda Bux,
1952 A.L.J. (p. 39).
(ii)
Consecutive or concurrent
G.L. No.4/VII-b-82-51 dated 18th April, 1951
The letter invites attention to the following observations contained in a judgment
of the High Court in a Criminal Revision.
―I find that magistrates invariably make the several sentences concurrent without
exercising any discretion in the matter. It is laid down in section 35 (new section 31) of
the Code, that one sentence of imprisonment will commence after the expiration of other
sentence of imprisonment unless the court directs that such sentences shall run
concurrently. Obviously, the normal rule is that the sentences should be consecutive and
they may be made to run concurrently only if there is some reason. Whether the
sentences should run consecutively or concurrently is left to the discretion of the court,
but the court must exercise its discretion judicially. It must not exercise it arbitrarily and