In Brief
A man was charged with theft of electricity equipment in nine separate cases and tried in nine sessions trials. He agreed to a plea bargain and was convicted under the Electricity Act. The trial court sentenced him to two years' imprisonment in each case with a set-off of under-trial custody but failed to expressly direct sentences to run concurrently. This resulted in jail authorities treating sentences as consecutive, totalling 18 years. The Supreme Court held the High Court should have corrected this serious miscarriage of justice. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed all nine sentences to run concurrently, significantly reducing the total sentence to approximately two years.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.