P.N. Mohanan Nair vs State Of Kerala

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 1102-1104 OF 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.2034-2036 of 2016)

P.N. MOHANAN NAIR ..........APPELLANT(s)

Versus

STATE OF KERALA ......RESPONDENT(s)

ORDER

NAVIN SINHA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The substantive appeals against convictions were

dismissed as withdrawn on 09.12.2016. Liberty was however

granted, to approach this court again if required. On the

application made, the special leave petition was resurrected.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2017.07.12 07:24:04 IST Reason: 1

3. The short question of law for consideration is, if the

offences essentially constitute a single transaction, but have

been split up by the prosecution into three separate cases, will

the sentences imposed individually, run concurrently or

consecutively? The issue stands covered by the decisions in

V.K. Bansal vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2013) 7

SCC 211 followed in Shyam Pal vs. Dayawati Besoya, (2016)

10 SCC 761 and Benson vs. State of Kerala, (2016) 10 SCC

307.

4. The appellant was a Peon in the office of Sub Registrar,

Vazhoor. He was alleged to have misappropriated Rs.92,225/-

from public funds during 1995-1996, without making

remittance in the Sub Treasury, creating false challans

showing remittance. The Prosecution initiated under Sections

13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and under

Sections 409, 465 and 471, I.P.C. was split up in three

different cases, for the period 07.07.1992 to 29.12.1992

2 registered as C.C. No.21/2002, for the period 21.10.1994 to

31.07.1995 registered as C.C. No.22/2002 and for the period

12.12.1995 to 30.08.1996 C.C. No.23/2002 was registered.

The three cases were tried jointly and common evidence was

recorded.

5. The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur,

by a common judgment convicted the appellant to one year

rigorous imprisonment under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(c)

and 13(1)(d) of the Act in each one of them, along with fine of

Rs.15,000/-, Rs.30,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively. The

conviction was further under Section 409 I.P.C to one year

rigorous imprisonment in each, as also three months rigorous

imprisonment each, under Sections 465 and 471 I.P.C. The

substantive sentences in each case were directed to run

concurrently.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

allegations for misappropriation were for one transaction, in a

3 block period, for a quantified sum. The appellant will have to

undergo the sentences consecutively for each conviction, after

the earlier sentence in a case exhausted itself. The appellant

is 68 years old. Reference was made to Section 427(1) Cr.P.C.

and Shyam Pal (supra) to contend that the sentences awarded

individually ought to be directed to run concurrently.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent, referring to Section

31 Cr.P.C. submits that each case was a separate prosecution,

relating to a different time period, and for a different sum. It is

only in a case where a person is tried in respect of two or more

offences in a single transaction, that the sentence can be

directed to run concurrently.

8. We have considered the respective submissions, and are

of the opinion, that essentially the allegations constituted a

single transaction, between the same parties for a block

period, split up by the prosecution, presumably for its

convenience, into three different cases. The evidence also was

4 common, and so is the conviction. Section 427(1), Cr.P.C.

stipulates that where a person undergoing a sentence of

imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to

imprisonment, it shall commence at the expiration of the

imprisonment previously sentenced, unless the court directs

that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with

such previous sentence. The jurisdiction being discretionary

must be exercised on fair and just principles in the facts of a

case.

9. We do not consider it necessary to further elucidate or

enter into an exposition of the law, in view of the

precedents noticed above. Suffice it to observe that in the

facts of the case, the exercise of discretion under Section

427(1) Code of Criminal Procedure, mandates that the

substantive sentences imposed upon the appellant in the three

separate prosecutions, are directed to run concurrently,

except the default sentence, if the fine by way of

compensation as imposed has not been paid by him.

5 The appellant would naturally be entitled to all consequential

reliefs for release from custody as available in law based on

the present discussion.

10. The appeals stand disposed.

………………………………….J. (Ranjan Gogoi)

……….………………………..J. (Navin Sinha) New Delhi, July 11, 2017

6 ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.4 SECTION II-B (For Judgment) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

PETITIONS FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.)NOS.2034-2036/2016

ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 13/11/2015 IN CRLA NOS. 980/2005, 981/2005 AND 982/2005 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM)

P.N. MOHANAN NAIR Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF KERALA Respondent(s)

Date : 11-07-2017 These appeals were called for pronouncement of judgment today.

For petitioner(s) Mr. V. K. Sidharthan, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and His Lordship.

Leave granted.

The appeals stand disposed in terms of the signed judgment.

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

(NEETU KHAJURIA) (ASHA SONI) COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER

(Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file.)

7