Default Sentences Cannot Be Directed To Run Concurrently: Supreme Court

Case: Dumya Alias Lakhan Alias Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra ; CrA 818-820 OF 2021
Citation: LL 2021 SC 396
Coram: Justices UU Lalit and Ajay Rastogi
Counsel: Adv Pravin Satale for appellants, Adv Rahul Chitnis for state

The Supreme Court observed that the default sentences imposed on a convict cannot be directed to run concurrently.

In this case, the accused were convicted under 3(1)(ii) ,3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to imprisonment of 7/10 years. Rupees Five lacs fine was imposed on each and in default three years rigorous imprisonment was ordered. However, all the sentences was ordered to run concurrently.

In appeal, it was contended that the default sentences awarded to the convicts were on the excessive side given their economic conditions.

While considering these contentions, the bench of Justices UU Lalit and Ajay Rastogi noted that in Sharad Hiru Kilambe vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 718] it was held that the default sentence cannot be directed to run concurrently.

The bench noted that in Sharad Hiru, the court had observed that the default sentence given to the concerned accused of three years each on three counts was found to be excessive.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s