The Supreme Court ruled that if a person is convicted in two cases and receives separate sentences, the time spent as a defendant can only be counted towards one of the sentences, and not both, even if the court of first instance ruled that both sentences should be served concurrently.
This decision was made by a panel of judges Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta after it was discovered that gangster Abu Salem had double-counted his period of detention, attempting to secure release from prison based on having already served 25 years. This occurred despite him being sentenced to life imprisonment in two terrorism cases in 2015 and 2017.
Judge Nath emphasized that the fact that the sentences in the two cases were ordered to be served simultaneously is significant. He explained that concurrent sentences run in parallel, so the same period of incarceration cannot be conditionally counted twice to determine the completion of the term.
Judge Nath also noted that 'the appellant (Salem) cannot treat the period preceding the later conviction as time in custody before trial for one sentence, while simultaneously treating the same period starting from the date of the earlier conviction as time after sentencing for another sentence, thereby gaining a double advantage.'
The Supreme Court stated that the sovereign commitment given to the Portuguese government that Salem would not be sentenced to a term exceeding 25 years does not affect the judicial determination of Salem's guilt in the two terrorism cases or the imposition of life sentences upon him.
The Court pointed out that 'the prescription of the nature and scope of punishment is regulated by the Legislative branch, and its application to the facts of a specific case is within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary. The Executive branch, in turn, exercises powers regarding pardon, mitigation, or release as provided by law.'
The SC addressed a government statement in which Salem was listed among inmates sentenced to 50 years in prison. After reducing the periods of deduction and pardon, the Court was informed that Salem's probable release date would be January 31, 2046, meaning another 20 years.
Rejecting Salem's appeal, the Supreme Court stated that the calculations made by the government indicate that he continues to serve a life sentence, and 'the condition that he cannot be detained for more than 25 years is a consequence of the sovereign guarantee provided by the Union Government to the Portuguese government. It does not convert the life sentence into a fixed term of 25 years.'
