MOHD ZAHID versus STATE THROUGH NCB

MOHD ZAHID versus STATE THROUGH NCB

The appeals were dismissed because the appellant was convicted in two separate trials arising from different transactions with different crime numbers and different judgments, there was no specific direction by the trial court to run the subsequent sentence concurrently, and the discretionary power under Section 427 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised in favour of an accused convicted under the NDPS Act given the seriousness of the offences; therefore the subsequent sentence must run consecutively to the earlier sentence.

Parties
Appellant: MOHD ZAHID; Respondent: State through NCB
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Concurrent Sentence, Section 427 Cr.p.c., Sentencing, Section 31 NDPS Act
Criminal Law Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Concurrent Sentence Section 427 Cr.p.c. Sentencing Section 31 NDPS Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MOHD ZAHID

Appellant

State through NCB

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a subsequent sentence should run concurrently or consecutively under Section 427 Cr.P.C.
  2. 2 Whether discretion under Section 427 Cr.P.C. should be exercised in favour of an accused convicted under the NDPS Act given the nature of the offences

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals were dismissed because the appellant was convicted in two separate trials arising from different transactions with different crime numbers and different judgments, there was no specific direction by the trial court to run the subsequent sentence concurrently, and the discretionary power under Section 427 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised in favour of an accused convicted under the NDPS Act given the seriousness of the offences; therefore the subsequent sentence must run consecutively to the earlier sentence.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed by the Supreme Court
  • Submission to direct the subsequent sentence (in FIR No.43/1999) to run concurrently with the previous sentence (in FIR No.134/1999) rejected; convictions and sentences in the two trials therefore stand as imposed