1955 JTR(Cal) 70
1955 AIR(Cal) 632 ; 1955 CrLJ 1584
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Mitter, Renupada Mukherjee
JAINTA KUMAR BANERJEE - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Criminal Revn. 300 Of 1955
Decided On : MAY 5, 1955
The court has the authority under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code to order concurrent sentences for multiple convictions.
Act Referred :CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.561(a)
Concurrent Sentences - Criminal Conviction - The court ordered the petitioner's sentences to run concurrently for the first three convictions under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to make his sentences concurrent for multiple criminal convictions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that it had the power under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code to order concurrent sentences for the relevant convictions.
Issues: The issue was whether the court had the authority to make the petitioner's sentences run concurrently for certain convictions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code to exercise its power to order concurrent sentences based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The court directed that the petitioner's sentences for the first three convictions run concurrently.
Concurrent Sentences - Criminal Conviction - The court ordered the petitioner's sentences to run concurrently for the first three convictions under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to make his sentences concurrent for multiple criminal convictions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that it had the power under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code to order concurrent sentences for the relevant convictions.
Issues: The issue was whether the court had the authority to make the petitioner's sentences run concurrently for certain convictions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code to exercise its power to order concurrent sentences based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The court directed that the petitioner's sentences for the first three convictions run concurrently.
N.K.Sen
MITTER, J.
( 1 ) THIS Rule was issued by the Bench taking undefended criminal cases to show cause why the petitioner's sentences should not be made concurrent.
( 2 ) THE petitioner was convicted and sentenced as follows:1. A sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and 6 months under Section 408 of the Penal Code, passed on 19/5/1951;2. A sentence of 4 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200. 00, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 3 months more under Section 420 of the Penal Code, passed an 5/9/1951;3. A sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 200. 00, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 2 months more under Section 420 of the Penal Code, passed on 22/9/1951;and lastly, a sentence of 2 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 474 of He Penal Code passed by Sen, J. on 20-8-1 (sic)2.
( 3 ) THE petitioner prays that the several sentences imposed upon him be directed to run (sic) currently. It is clear that so far as the petitioner (sic) conviction and the sentence imposed upon him (sic) this Court are concerned, we cannot interfere. (sic) regard to the sentences in respect of the other that convictions, we have, in our view; power (sic) Section 561-A. Criminal P. C. to order that they may (sic) concurrently. In all the facts and circumstance (sic) this case, we direct that the petitioner's sentences (sic) respect of the first three convictions do run (sic) currently. The Rule is disposed of accordingly.