Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Hon’ble Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M.R Shah of Supreme Court in the recent case of State of Punjab v. Ranjit Kaur passed an Order that the inherent power of the High court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not enable the High Court to alter, add, modify or vary any order that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.
The accused was convicted for embezzlement of the amount of a co-operative bank between the periods from 1982 to 1994 while she was working as Junior Clerk. The sentence in each case (she was convicted in 69 cases) range from one year to two years. After the conviction was upheld in these cases by the Apex Court, in her petition filed under section 482 of CrPC, the High Court noted that the offence though challaned in 69 cases formed part of the same facts and cannot be looked in isolation.
The Court noted that Section 427 of the Code provides that when a person undergoing a sentence of imprisonment sentences, on a subsequent conviction, to imprisonment, such imprisonment is to commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has previously been sentenced unless the court directs that subsequent sentence shall run concurrently. It also noted that such contention had not been raised by the accused in her appeals filed before the High Court or in the special leave petition filed by her in the Supreme Court against the orders of her conviction and sentence in the 69 Challan cases.
Court referred the Judgement of M.R Kundva v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1] in which it is said:-
“The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, does not enable the High Court to alter, add to, modify or vary any order that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.”
The appeal is granted by the court. Therefore it allowed her plea for concurrent running of sentences.
[1] [(2007) R.Cr.D 236 (SC)]
86540
103860
630
114
59824