In Brief
The appellant was convicted of theft in 12 separate cases, with sentences imposed by different magistrate courts. Appeals and revision petitions were dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence amounts but exercised its discretion under Section 427 CrPC to modify the sentences. Since all four current crimes occurred on the same day with similar 2-year sentences, the Court directed substantive sentences to run concurrently with the existing operative sentence, rather than consecutively. Fine and default sentences remain consecutive. The appeal was partly allowed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.