Kerala High Court orders release of 61-year-old convict who spent 18 years in prison in 14 cases

A 61-year-old man who had spent over 18 years behind bars for sentences awarded to him in 14 criminal cases, was finally granted relief by the Kerala High Court after it intervened and exercised power under Section 427 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to order his release (Sivanandan v The Superintendent Central Prison and Correctional Home)..The man was convicted for fourteen different cases pending before different courts after he pleaded guilty. All the sentence were to run consecutively since none of the courts exercised their discretion under Section 427 to order the sentences to run concurrently.Section 427 confers powers on courts to order that sentences which are otherwise to run consecutively, shall run concurrently..Single-judge Justice Ashok Menon invoked Section 427 CrPC in exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC and directed the Superintendent of the Central Prison, where the petitioner had been confined, to release him immediately while recording that he has undergone the sentence in all the crimes he was convicted."I find that it will be in the interest of justice if the court exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC intervened to invoke the powers under Section 427 of the CrPC," the single-judge said. .In the present case, the Court noted that the petitioner had pleaded guilty to all offences and and had undergone more than 18 years in jail. The Court also took into account the advanced age of the petitioner."I find the petitioner had not even contested the cases and had pleaded guilty, in consequence of which he was sentenced to imprisonment. He is more than 60 years old and has been in prison for more than 18 years now. Under the circumstances, exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the accused forthwith recording that he has undergone the sentence in all the crimes in which he was convicted," the Court ordered..However, the Court maintained that the power under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised with utmost caution. "The very fact that such power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is vested only in the High Court is a safeguard for the power being not abused and hence utmost care and caution is required while invoking the powers. The object of exercise of power being to prevent abuse of process of court and also to secure the ends of justice, it follows that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law," the Court said..The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, Sivanandan, had been in prison since 2003 after having pleaded guilty in 14 offences such as theft, housebreaking, lurking house trespass by night, etc. Subsequently, Sivanandan was convicted in all the cases for a period ranging between 6 months imprisonment to 5 years imprisonment and fine and has been in prison since 2003, they added..It was pointed out that being different cases committed at different periods of time and pending before different courts, none of the courts exercised the discretion under Section 427 CrPC to order the sentences to run concurrently. If the sentences would run consecutively one after the other, the petitioner will have to remain behind bars for 30 years and 6 months, the counsel for the petitioner said..It was argued that the Magistrates, who convicted the petitioner, should have exercised the power granted under Section 427 of CrPC. They cited several decisions of the Supreme Court in support of this argument.Had the Magistrates exercised this power, the petitioner would have been released after serving five years, which was the maximum sentence awarded to him in one of the 14 cases..The Court saw merit in arguments of the petitioner .It referred to the decision of the the Supreme Court in Neera Yadav v. CBI, in which it was observed that the power conferred on the court under Section 427 to order concurrent sentence is discretionary. "The salutary principle adopted by the court is the totality of the sentences. The maximum sentence awarded in one case against the same accused is relevant while giving concurrent sentence in another case. Only in appropriate cases, considering the facts of the case, can the court make the sentence concurrent with an earlier sentence imposed exercising powers under Section 427 read with Section 31 of the CrPC.".Therefore, Justice Menon proceeded to order the release of the petitioner. .[Read Order]