# 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-163580
- **Pages:** 2

## 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
344
must not on every occasion blindly order the sentence to run concurrently as if there were
no alternative."
C.L. No. 22/VII-C-15 dated 26th March, 1954
A youthful offender who escapes from the reformatory school, commits another
offence during the period of his detention (though not actually confined in the
reformatory school), and is convicted comes within the purview of section 32 of the
Reformatory Schools Act, 1897.
The sentence passed in a case, to which section 32 of the Reformatory School
Act, 1897, applies, should commence at once, that is, a court has no power to award a
consecutive sentence in such a case, irrespective of the provisions of section 397 (new
section 427) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
As specifically provided for by this section, the court should in each case, report
the matter to the State Government immediately after conviction.
(iii)
Fixing of dates for execution of condemned prisoners
C.L. No. 28/VIII-a-19, dated 21st March, 1957
The provisions of the Supreme Court Rules and the instructions issued by the
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs regarding procedure to be followed in
relation to petition for mercy appeals and applications for special leave to the Supreme
Court by or on behalf of the prisoners sentenced to death should be strictly followed
while fixing the date for execution of the condemned prisoners.
Article IX of the aforesaid instructions, inter alia, provides that the sentence of
death shall not be executed until the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for
referring applications for special leave to the Supreme Court. Under Order XXI, rule 2 of
the Supreme Court Rules, 1950, such a period of limitation is thirty days from the date of
the order of the High Court refusing certificate of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Sessions Judges should, therefore, fix the date for execution of the prisoners
sentenced to death after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for preferring
application for special leave to the Supreme Court by or on behalf of the condemned
prisoners.
(iv) Report regarding conviction of Yugoslav nationals
 C.L. No 57/VIIIe-32 dated 16th October, 1954

The Government of India and the Government of the Federal Peoples Republic of
Yugoslavia have agreed, on a basis of reciprocity, to exchange information regarding
nationals of one country convicted and sentenced by a court of criminal jurisdiction in
another country.

Whenever a Yugoslav national is convicted and sentenced by a criminal court in a
sessions division, the Sessions Judge should submit a report to Government for
transmission to the Government of India.