Emperor vs Chokhu Yesu

John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.—This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Poona in which he asks us to interfere with the sentence imposed by the City Magistrate, First Class, Poona. The accused was convicted under Sections 353 and 224 of the Indian Penal Code, and the Magistrate sentenced him for each of the offences to rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 25. There was, therefore, a separate and distinct sentence under each of the two sections. But the learned Magistrate directed that the substantive sentences should run concurrently, and the District Magistrate takes the view that that is illegal, in view of the explanation to Section 224. That explanation, provides that the punishment in this section is in addition to the punishment for which the person to be apprehended or detained in custody was liable for the offence with which he was charged, or of which he was convicted. In my opinion, there having been in the present case a distinct sentence u/s 224, the explanation has been complied with. There is nothing in the explanation to require that a sentence of imprisonment u/s 224 must be made to run consecutively to a sentence imposed for the main offence of which the accused was convicted. A concurrent sentence is none the less an additional sentence. It might happen that on appeal the conviction for the main offence was set aside and the conviction u/s 224 was affirmed, in which case a separate, though concurrent, sentence under the latter section would become operative. In my opinion, the view of the City Magistrate was right, and the view of the learned District Magistrate is wrong, and we must, therefore, discharge the rule.