Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter XXXII: Execution, Suspension, Remission and Commutation of Sentences · D.–General provisions regarding execution
Section 427: Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
(1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence:
Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately.
(2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with
such previous sentence.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 427
-
State (NCT) of Delhi v. Rajeev Sharma
Issue arose as to whether the courts below were justified in convicting the petitioners u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of cheques and sentencing them to six months of simple imprisonment…
- The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr v. Vijayanagaram Chinna Reddappa
- Iqram v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors
- Abu Salem Abdul Kayyum Ansari v. The State of Maharashtra
- Mohd Zahid v. State Through Ncb
- Rajan v. The Home Secretary, Home Department of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
- Jitendra @ Kalla v. State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi
- Sharad Hiru Kolambe v. State of Maharashtra and Others
- Neera Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigaton
- Anil Kumar v. State of Punjab
- Shyam Pal v. Dayawatl Besoya & Anr.
- Benson v. State of Kerala
- Muthuramalingam & Ors. v. State Rep. by Insp. of Police
- Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and Others
- V. K. .Bansal v. State of Haryana and Ors. Etc. Etc.