(Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to undergo the punishment of the petitioner concurrently under in C.C.No.1 of 2016, C.C. No. 6 of 2007, C.C. No. 7 of 2007, C.C. No. 8 of 2007 and C.C. No. 9 of 2007 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Trichy.)

1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to undergo the punishment of the petitioner concurrently under in C.C.No.1 of 2016, C.C. No. 6 of 2007, C.C. No. 7 of 2007, C.C. No. 8 of 2007 and C.C. No. 9 of 2007 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Trichy.

2. The brief facts necessary to dispose of this petition are as that the petitioner is a convict in five cases, viz., C.C. No. 6 of 2007, C.C. No. 7 of 2007, C.C. No. 8 of 2007, C.C. No. 9 of 2007, and C.C. No. 1 of 2016, for the offences under Sections 120-B, 471, and 420 read with Section 511 of I.P.C. He is undergoing his conviction and sentence at present. In all the cases, the matters were tried before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy who found him guilty and imposed a sentence of two years in the first four cases referred to above and five years in the last case. The appeals preferred by the accused before the II Additional Sessions Court, Trichy in Crl.A. Nos. 15 of 2014, 16 of 2014, 17 of 2017, and 7 of 2025 were dismissed, and the sentences passed by the trial Court were confirmed. Further revisions before this Court in Crl.R.C. (MD) Nos. 283, 282, 281, and 279 of 2018 were also dismissed, confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Further, the Special Leave Petition filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 13843 of 2023 was also dismissed on 27.08.2024, and thereafter, the Review Petition was also dismissed on 02.04.2025.

3. Having the separate sentence issued in five cases and there is no specific order directing that the sentences be served concurrently, this petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 4, the officials connected with the prison administration, to undergo the petitioner's sentence imposed in C.C.No.1 of 2016 concurrently with the sentences imposed in the other four cases referred to above.

4. Heard both sides. Perused the records. Considered the submissions made by both sides.

5. Before proceeding further, during the course of the submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed an index to the additional typed set of papers in a tabular format, to assist the Court in dealing with the matter in a smooth manner, mentioning the Crime Number, Calendar Case Number, Criminal Appeal Number, Criminal Revision Case Number and Special Leave Petition Number, details, and the punishment imposed therein. For clarity, the tabulation is given below:







6. Mr. T. Lajapathy Roy, Senior Advocate, argued the case for the petitioner. He submitted that, though five cases were tried by the same Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy. In three cases, namely, C.C. Nos. 6 of 2007, 7 of 2007, and 8 of 2007, judgments were passed on 31.12.2013. In all the cases; however, there was no specific order directing the sentences in the later two cases to run concurrently with the sentence in the first case. The judgments in the other two cases were delivered by the same Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy, on different dates, namely, 31.12.2014 (C.C. No. 9 of 2007) and 30.01.2020 (C.C. No. 1 of 2016). Even then, there was no specific order directing that, in such circumstances, the sentences in the later two cases should run concurrently with those in any one of the former three cases.

7. He further submitted that though the concurrent sentence, as per the Section 427(1) of the Cr.P.C., ought to have been considered, but the trial Court did not apply the same, and the appellate Court and the revisional Court also did not consider the same, as no such plea was raised by the accused at that time. However, the same was raised at the stage before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Criminal) No. 13843 of 2023, seeking a direction that the sentences imposed in all five cases be ordered to run concurrently. The same was rejected by an order dated 27.08.2024, holding that these were not cases in which the exercise of discretion under sub-section (1) of Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. was called for. Further, an attempt was made before the Hon'ble Supreme Court to review the said order in Review Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 50687 of 2024, which was dismissed on 02.04.2025. The Hon'ble Supreme Court thus negatived the request to apply Section 427(1) of the Cr.P.C. and to order all the sentences imposed in the five cases to run concurrently. However, as per Section 528 of the BNSS, this Court has inherent power to order the sentences imposed in the five cases to run concurrently. Therefore, this petition has been filed.

8. He further submitted that though the petitioner is an Advocate, who committed certain offences which were upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and he has been in prison since 28.04.2023 and has undergone incarceration for more than three years. He is also affected by certain ailments, including AIDS, in addition to heart problem and diabetes. Therefore, it may be considered to order later punishment imposed in four cases imposed with the sentence imposed in the first case as concurrently. If so ordered, there will be a chance of his being released from prison in due course, and he will be able to safeguard his life. Though the petitioner has committed certain offences, as found by the trial Court, that he conspired with the other co-accused and created false and forged insurance documents and filed Motor Accident Claims Original Petitions to claim insurance amounts for the victims. However, taking note of the age of the accused, who is aged about 67 years, and the fact that he is suffering from certain ailments, on equitable grounds, his case may be considered on mercy. He submitted that this Court has the power to invoke Section 528 of the BNSS as an inherent power to render justice to the convict, even though he is an Advocate, who committed certain offences.

9. Mr.M.Karunanidhi, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the fifth respondent submitted that, though this Court has the power to invoke Section 528 of the BNSS as an inherent power to order the sentences to run concurrently, but the crime committed by the convict, who was an Advocate, involved conspiring with the co-accused for the purpose of making illegal money by creating documents in a forged manner and obtaining an award of compensation in an MCOP cases. Therefore, he cannot be dealt with leniently and should be dealt with an iron hand. Hence, to invoke the inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS, this case is not a fit case for such exercise.

10. He further submitted that as argued by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Apex Court has already held that these are not fit cases for exercising the discretionary power under Section 427(1) of the Cr.P.C. Once the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a decision in the Special Leave Petition filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot exercise its powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, which are inferior to the constitutional power. The Hon'ble Apex Court, by exercising its power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, rejected the petitioner's request to exercise the discretionary power under Section 427(1) of the Cr.P.C., therefore, this Court should not to proceed to exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS. Hence, this is not a fit case for invoking the inherent power, and this petition is liable to be dismissed.

11. Mr.C.Susikumar, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), representing the State of Tamil Nadu, the respondents 1 to 4, submitted his arguments in line with those of the learned counsel for the fifth respondent and pointed out that the prayer of the petitioner is not at all maintainable. The prayer is to direct respondents 1 to 4, namely, the prison authorities, to undergo the punishment concurrently in the five cases referred to above. The prayer itself a wrong and it should be amended. Whatever the orders passed by the Court have to be implemented and executed by the prison authorities. If the Court orders the sentences imposed in the five cases to run concurrently, the same may be implemented by the prison authorities. However, the prayer itself is not properly framed, as the Court cannot direct the respondents 1 to 4 to undergo the punishment imposed on the petitioner concurrently in the five cases. Therefore, the prayer is misconceived, and this petition is liable to be dismissed.

12. By way of reply, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that, though the prayer is not properly framed by the counsel, it is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the SLP, considered the petitioner's request for an order directing the sentences in all the cases to run concurrently found that these were not cases in which the exercise of discretion under sub-section (1) of Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. was called for. However, this Court may consider the subsequent developments, namely, that the petitioner is affected by AIDS, a heart problem, and diabetes, and may pass suitable orders by holding whether or not it is a fit case to invoke Section 528 of the BNSS. Otherwise, the petitioner may once again approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court in view of his subsequent ailments and seek appropriate relief.

13. The petitioner side counsel cited a case in K. Arasan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2012 (6) CTC 510, where the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held that the inherent power under Section 482 of CrPC can be invoked to grant the benefit of Section 427 of CrPC and direct a subsequent sentence to run concurrently with a previous sentence. The Court clarified that such exercise of Section 482 does not amount to altering or modifying the findings of the subordinate courts, but is an exercise of inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice. However, the power is discretionary and must depend upon the facts, circumstances and gravity of the charge in each case.

14. Another case cited by the petitioner in Murugan @ Panni Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 156, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court held that the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC to direct sentences to run concurrently under Section 427 of CrPC. The Court held that such inherent power is not fettered by Section 427(1) and may be exercised even at a later stage, including where the trial Court, appellate Court or revisional Court has not exercised its discretion under Section 427(1) and the conviction has become final.

15. Another decision referred by the petitioner side in Ayyanar v. State of Tamil Nadu, Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12 of 2025, decided on 06.01.2025, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court held that the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC, to direct sentences to run concurrently under Section 467 of BNSS, corresponding to Section 427 of CrPC. The Court reiterated that the power is discretionary and depends upon the nature and gravity of the offences. Considering that the petitioner had been convicted for similar offences under Section 379 of IPC, had pleaded guilty in all four cases, and the cases were disposed of by the same Court on the same day, the Court directed the sentences to run concurrently.

16. The point for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled the benefit of Section 427 (1) of Cr.P.C to order sentence imposed in five cases to run concurrently, even after the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the said request of the petitioner, by using Section 528 of BNSS?

17. From the facts culled out from the precedings paras and the tabular column, it is evident that the petitioner and the other co-accused were involved in a conspiracy to create forged insurance policy documents to avail the award amount from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. They filed various petitions and cheated the insurance companies and the Tribunal, thereby the petitioner was subjected to criminal prosecution by the CBI. He was convicted, and the conviction was upheld upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. These are not disputed facts on either side.

18. In addition to the above, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the fifth respondent submitted that the petitioner is facing trial for similar offences, which is not disputed by the petitioner’s side. The petitioner was an Advocate appearing before the Court and in the course of his legal profession, he conspired with the co-accused, created insurance policies, forged documents and availed monetary benefits from the awards. He was convicted under Section 120B read with Sections 182, 468 read with 74, and 420 read with 511 of IPC. All these sections relate to conspiracy, giving false information with intent to cause injury to a public servant, forgery for the purpose of cheating, using a forged document or electronic record as genuine, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, and attempting to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment. As of now, he has been convicted in five cases, and the convictions have been confirmed upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He has been undergoing sentence in the Central Prison, Trichy, since 28.04.2023. There are other cases against the petitioner which are pending for trial or undergoing trial, which is not in dispute.

19. Since the petitioner, being an Advocate and officer to Court, committed criminal conspiracy and cheated by creating forged documents to avail money from the Court of law by filing false petitions, he cannot be dealt with in a smooth manner, and the matter has to be dealt with with an iron hand, for the punishment has been imposed in five different cases. The trial Courts is none of the cases imposed the concurrent sentence under Section 427(1) of the Cr.P.C., so as to direct the subsequent sentences to run concurrently with the previous sentence. In the absence of any discretionary power having been exercised by the trial Court, which was upheld upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court may not be in a position to accept the contention of the petitioner to invoke the inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS. Before proceeding further, this Court is of the firm view that some precedents relating to Section 427(1) of the Cr.P.C. have to be considered.

20. In Benson v. State of Kerala, (2016) 10 SCC 307, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered several convictions of the appellant in different cases and the resulting aggregate period of imprisonment. The Court held that under Section 427(1) of CrPC, the normal rule is that a subsequent sentence commences after the expiry of the previous sentence, but the Court has the power to direct concurrent running. Following V.K. Bansal, the Court held that this discretion must be exercised on judicial principles and not mechanically. Considering that the offences in the cases before it had been committed on the same day and that the aggregate imprisonment would otherwise be about 19 years, the Court directed the substantive sentences in the four specified cases to run concurrently with the sentence then operative. However, it specifically maintained the fine and default sentences separately, holding that if the fine was not paid, the default imprisonment would run consecutively and not concurrently.

21. In Anil Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2017) 5 SCC 53, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the nature of the discretion under Section 427(1) CrPC. The Court held that a subsequent sentence would normally commence after the expiry of the earlier sentence, but in an appropriate case the Court can direct the sentences to run concurrently. The discretion is not to be exercised mechanically; it must be exercised on sound judicial principles, and whether concurrency should be granted depends upon the nature of the offence/offences and the facts and circumstances of each case. Applying that principle, the Court considered the appellant's earlier conviction under Section 22 of NDPS Act and his subsequent conviction under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and directed the substantive sentences to run concurrently. However, the Court expressly maintained the fine and default sentences, directing that any default imprisonment would run consecutively.

22. In P.N. Mohanan Nair v. State of Kerala, (2017) 14 SCC 719, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered three separate cases which, according to the Court, essentially arose out of one transaction between the same parties during the same period. The prosecution had split the matter into three different cases, and the evidence and convictions were substantially connected. The Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction under Section 427(1) of CrPC is discretionary and must be exercised on fair and just principles having regard to the facts of the case. Considering that the three cases essentially represented a single transaction, the Court directed the substantive sentences in all three cases to run concurrently. However, the default sentence relating to compensation/fine was excluded from the benefit of concurrency.

23. In Vicky @ Vikas v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 11 SCC 540, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the question of concurrency where the accused had faced separate trials arising from different transactions. The Court explained that the general rule is that where convictions relate to different transactions, the sentences ordinarily run consecutively. However, the Court made an important clarification: this is not an absolute or inflexible rule. The general rule can be changed by a judicial order under Section 427(1), depending upon the special and peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The Court referred to Benson and V.K. Bansal in explaining the discretion.

24. In Iqram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2023) 3 SCC 184, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 427(1) of CrPC confers discretion on the Court to direct that a subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the sentence previously imposed, although the normal rule is that the subsequent sentence commences after the expiry of the previous sentence. In the case before it, the appellant had been convicted in nine separate Sessions Trials, with two years imprisonment in each case, and all the convictions had taken place on the same day; the trial court had not specifically exercised its discretion under Section 427(1), resulting in the possibility of 18 years imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that, when the appellant approached the High Court under Article 226, the High Court ought to have intervened to prevent the serious miscarriage of justice that would result from such consecutive incarceration. The Supreme Court, therefore, set aside the High Court’s judgment and directed that the sentences imposed in all nine Sessions Trials run concurrently. Thus, this case establishes that the discretion under Section 427(1) is judicial and may be exercised to prevent an unjust or disproportionate consequence, but the decision was based on the peculiar facts of that case and does not lay down that sentences arising from separate cases must ordinarily run concurrently.

25. In Mohd. Akhtar Hussain @ Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti v. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad & Anr. (1988) 4 SCC 183, it was observed that the broad expanse of discretion left by legislation to sentencing Courts should not be narrowed only to the seriousness of the offence.

26. In Neera Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2017) 8 SCC 757, held that while interpreting Section 427 of Cr.P.C, it was observed that sentence passed on an offender, who is already sentenced for another offence, the power conferred on the Court under Section 427 of Cr.P.C. to order concurrent sentence is discretionary. The policy of the legislature is that normally the sentencing should be done consecutively, only in appropriate cases, considering the facts of the case, the Court can make the sentence concurrently with an earlier sentence imposed. The discretion exercised by the sentencing court to direct the concurrency will have to be exercised on sound principles and not on whims. It is well settled that where there are different transactions, different crime numbers and the cases have been decided by the different judgments, concurrent sentences cannot be awarded under Section 427 of Cr.PC. The general rule that there cannot be concurrency of sentences if conviction relates to two different transactions, can be changed by an order of the Court.

27. In Sharad Hiru Kolambe v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 718, it was observed that in a case where a person already undergoing a sentence is later imposed sentence in respect of offence tried at subsequent trial, the general rule is that the subsequent sentence imposed run consecutively, unless there is a specific order passed by the Court while imposing any subsequent sentence, exercising discretion conferred under Section 427 of Cr.PC that in the facts and circumstances in the subsequent sentence should run concurrently, the sentence imposed in both the cases shall run consecutively.

28. In Mohd Zahid v. State through NCB in Criminal Appeal No.1457 of 2021 dated 07.12.2021, the Hon'ble Apex Court after analysing various precedents and provision of Section 427 of Cr.P.C, in NDPS offence in two cases, where the accused therein was convicted, held that the persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instruments in causing death or in inflicting death blow to a number of innocent young victims who are vulnerable. Those type of accused causes deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society. They are hazard to the society. Such organized activities of clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have a deadly impact on the society as a whole. Taking note of all those aspects, it was held that while awarding the sentence or punishment in case of NDPS Act, the interest of the society as a whole is required to be taken into consideration. Even while applying discretion under Section 427 of Cr.PC, the discretion shall not be in favour of the accused who is found to be indulging in illegal trafficking in the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Considering the offences under the NDPS Act which are very serious in nature and against the society at large, no discretion shall be exercised in favour of such accused.

29. By applying the principle narrated above and coming to the facts of the present case, the petitioner, an Advocate, who was officer of the Court involved in a conspiracy to forge an insurance policy document for the purpose of making a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, for the benefit of himself and the co-accused. Having created a falsified record pursuant to a criminal conspiracy, the petitioner cannot be shown any leniency by ordering the sentences to run concurrently. There is no material on record to show that the petitioner had made a request before the Trial Court for ordering the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the earlier sentence.

30. Though such an attempt was made before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No. 13843 of 2023 and the same was rejected, observing that these were not fit cases in which the exercise of discretion under Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. was called for. In view of the facts discussed above, the legal principles referred to, and the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the petitioner's case, this Court is of the firm view that the request of the petitioner to direct all five cases sentences to run concurrently cannot be allowed. Generally, the subsequent sentence can only be ordered to run concurrently with previous sentence under Section 427 (1) of Cr.P.C. In this case the prayer itself not correct, wherein the previous four cases sentences are ordered to be run concurrently with last fifth case which is not permissible under law in Section 427 (1) of Cr.P.C. To that aspect also the petitioner case has no merits.

31. The learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the petitioner is suffering from certain ailments, including AIDS, diabetes, and heart problem and, therefore, all the sentences be ordered to run concurrently. This submission cannot be accepted merely on the ground of the petitioner's medical condition. All the Central Prisons are equipped with hospitals and medical facilities. As per the records produced by the petitioner, he had already taken treatment at the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Government Hospital, Trichy, on 29.05.2026, and was examined there regarding his condition and the need to continue his treatment. The records further disclose that the petitioner has been receiving medical treatment.

32. In view of the above circumstances, every Central Prison has a fully fledged medical facility and hospital or the convict may take treatment from Government Medical College Hospital where the petitioner can receive appropriate treatment. Therefore, the Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy, is requested to provide appropriate medical treatment to the petitioner, either in the Central Prison Hospital or any nearby Government Hospital, as the case may be, so as to safeguard the life and health of the petitioner.

33. In the result, with the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition shall stand dismissed.