Can an appellate court, in the absence of an express order under Section 31 CrPC, direct that sentences for offences arising out of a single transaction run concurrently?

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• An appellate court may correct the absence of a concurrency order at trial by directing sentences to run concurrently under its full discretion in Section 31 CrPC.
• Conviction under sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act (1908) sustained based on ammonium nitrate notified as a “special category explosive substance” on 10.12.2008—subsequent Rules (2012) do not negate prior notification.
• Trial courts should expressly specify whether sentences for multiple offences arising from one transaction run concurrently or consecutively.
• Appeals courts can modify sentencing without disturbing conviction or term lengths when the aggregate incarceration already exceeds the maximum single sentence.
• Counsel can cite this decision to remediate sentencing omissions in quashing or appeal petitions.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

1. Conviction Thresholds
   • Arms Act (secs. 25(1-B)(a)/26): operational rifles and live cartridges recovered; ingredients satisfied → conviction affirmed.
   • Explosive Substances Act (secs. 3/4): six bags of ammonium nitrate recovered; notification dated 10.12.2008 classified it as a special category explosive substance under Section 2(b) → conviction affirmed.
2. Statutory Interpretation
   • Section 2(b), Explosive Substances Act (1908) allows Central Government to notify “special category explosive substance.”
   • Ammonium nitrate’s 2008 notification binds despite later rules in 2012 and classification under the Explosives Act, 1884 pertains to regulatory safety, not punitive scope.
3. Sentencing Discretion under Section 31 CrPC
   • Full discretion to order concurrent sentences for multiple convictions in one trial (O.M. Cherian (2015) 2 SCC 501).
   • Trial court’s silence on concurrency is not binding; omissions can be remedied in appeal.
   • Given offences spring from a single raid, concurrent terms promote fairness and finalize 10+ years custody as satisfying maximum punishment.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (Appellant Bhuneshwar Mahto)

• No concealment: Section 26 Arms Act offence unmade.
• Sanction order not proved before 313 CrPC, improperly admitted.
• Ammonium nitrate not an explosive pre-2012 Rules → no offence under Explosive Substances Act.
• Trial court failed to direct concurrent sentences; continued custody despite serving maximum term.

Respondent (State of Jharkhand)

• Appellant, a hardcore extremist, was found with rifles, ammunition, ammonium nitrate—convictions sustainable.
• Recovery evidence unimpeached by multiple prosecution witnesses.
• Sentencing concurrency rests within judicial discretion; trial court did not err in separate sentences.

Factual Background

1. On 11.03.2010, police and CRPF raided the appellant’s village house on secret information that a hardcore extremist had arrived with arms and explosives.
2. The team apprehended Bhuneshwar Mahto in his courtyard and seized two .303 rifles, 50 live cartridges, a mobile phone, Naxal literature and six bags (250 kg) of ammonium nitrate.
3. The appellant confessed, was charged under sections 25(1-B)(a)/26 Arms Act, 3/4 Explosive Substances Act, 17 CLA Act and section 13 UAP Act, tried in Sessions Trial No. 291/2012.
4. Convicted and sentenced cumulatively without express concurrent order—prompted this criminal appeal.

Statutory Analysis

• Explosive Substances Act, 1908
  • Section 2(b): defines “special category explosive substance” to include items specified by Central Government notification.
  • Sections 3/4: prohibit manufacturing, possession, sale of such substances—punitive focus.
• Explosives Act, 1884
  • Governs safety, licensing, storage—distinct from the punitive regime of the 1908 Act.
• Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
  • Section 31: trial/appellate courts possess full discretion to direct concurrent or consecutive sentences for multiple offences in one trial.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

Justice Rajesh Kumar concurred fully with Justice Mukhopadhyay’s reasoning, particularly endorsing the correction of sentence concurrency under Section 31 CrPC and the affirmation of convictions under both Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act.

Procedural Innovations

• Appellate remedy to cure a trial court’s omission in specifying concurrent sentences by invoking Section 31 CrPC in the appellate order.
• Emphasis on clear sentence-running directives at trial to avoid custody confusion.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed – affirmed O.M. Cherian (2015) 2 SCC 501
• 📅 Time-Sensitive – clarifies sentence-running rules where 10+ years custody already served

Citations

• (2025:JHHC:23937-DB)
• O.M. Cherian v. State of Kerala & Ors., (2015) 2 SCC 501 (paras 20–21)