Failure to Consider Concurrent Sentencing Violates Right to Liberty: Allahabad High Court Directs Concurrent Running of Sentences for Electricity Theft Convict

“Judicial Duty Cannot Be Abdicated Merely Because of Plea Bargaining”: In a landmark judgment protecting fundamental rights under Article 21, the Allahabad High Court quashed consecutive sentencing imposed in six cases and directed that sentences shall run concurrently, where a convict was sentenced on the same day in multiple electricity theft cases. The Division Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Avnish Saxena held that non-exercise of judicial discretion under Section 427 CrPC while sentencing amounts to violation of personal liberty and warrants correction under writ jurisdiction.

“The legislative intent mandates Courts to exercise discretion while sentencing; silence on this aspect results in a gross miscarriage of justice,” the Court observed while allowing the writ petition under Article 226.

The petitioner, Santosh, was convicted in six separate cases under Section 136 of the Electricity Act, 2003, involving theft of electricity equipment from Jawan, District Aligarh. All six convictions occurred on the same date — 06.01.2024 — by the same Trial Judge based on plea bargaining. In each case, the petitioner was sentenced to one year and six months imprisonment with an additional fine.

The critical grievance arose from the fact that the Trial Court, while delivering simultaneous judgments, failed to direct whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively. As a result, the petitioner faced a cumulative sentence of nine years, leading to an “unjustified prolonged incarceration,” as termed by the High Court.

The primary legal issue was the mandatory judicial consideration under Section 427(1) CrPC, which provides Courts the discretion to order sentences to run concurrently, especially in cases of multiple convictions. Justice Avnish Saxena, authoring the judgment, pointedly remarked:

“Where the Trial Court convicts on the same day, without discussing or considering concurrency of sentence, it abdicates its statutory duty under Section 427 CrPC. Such omission is not trivial but strikes at the core of sentencing fairness.”

The Bench referenced the authoritative ruling of the Supreme Court in Iqram v. State of U.P., (2023) 3 SCC 184, where the Apex Court emphasized that a trial court’s failure to apply its mind to concurrent sentencing in similar factual situations resulted in violation of Article 21.

Quoting directly from the Supreme Court, the High Court reiterated,

“Once the petitioner espoused the remedy of moving a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court ought to have noticed the serious miscarriage of justice which would occur consequent upon the trial court not having exercised specifically its discretion within the ambit of Section 427(1).”

The Court further clarified that plea bargaining under Chapter XXI-A CrPC (Section 265-G) does not bar the constitutional remedy under Article 226 to remedy injustices emanating from sentencing lapses.

Emphasis on Judicial Responsibility Under Section 427 CrPC

The High Court stressed the constitutional expectation from trial courts to exercise sentencing discretion in every case:

“It is a legislative mandate that the Court must actively consider whether sentences should run concurrently. This duty exists regardless of whether the accused seeks such a direction. The Trial Court must be mindful of the human impact of prolonged incarceration, especially in minor offences like electricity theft.”

Highlighting the judicial duty in sentencing, the Court drew support from the Bombay High Court’s Full Bench in Satnam Singh Puran Singh Gill v. State of Maharashtra:

“The legislative intent requires the Court to act on its own as sentencing is primarily the duty of the Court and it is expected to consider all facets of sentencing policy while passing an order under Section 427(1) CrPC.”

Having determined that the petitioner was subjected to disproportionate incarceration due to non-application of judicial discretion, the Court ruled:

“The sentence of one year and six months imprisonment awarded to the petitioner in all six cases shall run concurrently.”

The Court directed the District Jail, Aligarh, to release Santosh, taking into account his sentence duration under concurrent running.

The Allahabad High Court’s ruling underscores the judiciary’s constitutional responsibility to protect the right to life and liberty under Article 21 even in cases involving plea bargaining. It emphatically held that mechanical sentencing without considering concurrent sentences unjustly prolongs incarceration and violates the basic tenets of justice.

By recognizing the importance of reasoned sentencing, the Court reinforced the principle that:

“Justice demands not just punishment, but fairness in how that punishment is imposed.”

Date of Decision: 16th July 2025