Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence
Section 467 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence. 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 di The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(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 141 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.
Section 467, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 427 Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Referred to by 1
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Iqram v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 427, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-4.pdf 2022-12-16 DATE VERIFIED (not same-date ROP order-3). Crl A 2319/2022. CrPC 427(1): subsequent sentences run consecutively unless the court specifically directs concurrency. Default consecutive would have meant 18 years for nine same-day Electricity Act convictions after a plea bargain. High Court should have used 226 to correct the miscarriage. Map crpc 427 / bnss 467.
On this section: Successor of CrPC 427 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9502). Concurrent-vs-consecutive teaching carries to BNSS 467.
-
The State of Andhra Pradesh vs Vijayanagaram Chinna Reddappa
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 427, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a life convict is subsequently convicted for another offense and sentenced to imprisonment for a term, the new sentence runs concurrently with the life sentence under Section 427(2) Cr.P.C., not consecutively under Section 426(2)(b) Cr.P.C., because a life sentence has no 'unexpired' portion in the technical sense contemplated by Section 426(2)(b). Therefore, the application of Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. is the correct approach for determining sentence computation in such cases.
On this section: Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offense - subsequent imprisonment commences at expiration of previous sentence unless court directs concurrent running
-
Benson vs State of Kerala
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 427, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is convicted of multiple offences arising from crimes committed on the same day and the sentences imposed are relatively short in duration, the court has discretionary power under Section 427(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code to direct that the subsequent sentences run concurrently with a sentence already being served, provided such discretion is exercised judicially considering the nature and number of offences. The benefit of concurrent sentencing may be restricted to substantive sentences while default sentences and fine sentences continue to run consecutively.
On this section: Core statutory provision governing sentence running - interpreted to confer discretionary power on courts to direct concurrent or consecutive running of sentences on subsequent convictions
-
Benson vs State of Kerala
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 427, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is convicted in multiple cases for offences committed on the same day, and each case is separately tried and sentenced consecutively, the Supreme Court, exercising its discretionary power under Section 427(1) Code of Criminal Procedure, can direct that the substantive sentences in such cases shall run concurrently with the earliest sentence already operative. This discretion must be exercised on judicial grounds considering the nature of offences, the date of commission, and the aggregate sentence burden, rather than in a mechanical manner. However, such direction for concurrent running applies only to substantive sentences of imprisonment and does not extend to sentences imposed in default of payment of fines, which continue to run consecutively to ensure compliance with financial obligations imposed by courts.
On this section: Central provision - governs the running of sentences when a person already undergoing imprisonment receives a subsequent conviction. Court analyzed subsection (1) to determine its discretionary scope and the principles governing exercise of such discretion
-
Benson vs State of Kerala
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 427, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person has been convicted and sentenced to separate terms of imprisonment for multiple offences committed on the same date, the appellate or revisional court may exercise its discretion under Section 427(1) CrPC to direct that such sentences run concurrently with an operative sentence, provided that the nature of the offences, the fact situation, the quantum of sentences, and the timing of the underlying acts warrant such a direction. The exercise of discretion must be based on judicial reasoning and consideration of the specific circumstances, not on mechanical application of rules. However, the benefit of concurrent running shall be confined to substantive sentences; sentences of fine and default sentences shall continue to run consecutively unless otherwise directed.
On this section: Governs the running of sentences when a person already undergoing imprisonment is sentenced on subsequent conviction. The Court interpreted subsection (1) to establish that while the default rule is consecutive running, the Court has discretion to direct concurrent running based on the nature of offences and fact situation
-
Benson vs State of Kerala
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 427, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is convicted in multiple cases for offences committed on the same day, the Supreme Court has discretionary power under Section 427(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to direct that the substantive sentences in such cases shall run concurrently with an operative sentence, provided the court applies judicial discretion based on the nature of offences and the relevant fact situation, considering factors such as the date of commission of offences, the quantum of sentences imposed, and the overall circumstances. However, such discretion is limited to substantive sentences; fine sentences and sentences in default of payment of fines shall continue to run consecutively.
On this section: Central statutory provision governing concurrent running of sentences; provides that when a person already undergoing a sentence is subsequently convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, the subsequent sentence normally commences at the expiration of the previous sentence, unless the court directs otherwise for concurrent running.
-
Senaul S/o. Afsar Shaikh vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 427, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is convicted in two separate trials for two distinct offences under two different enactments arising from the same transaction or the same basic criminal act, the court has discretion under Section 427(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code to direct that the sentences shall run concurrently rather than consecutively, particularly where the evidence in both cases is substantially the same and the offences are intimately connected. The exercise of this discretion should be guided by the totality principle, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offences, the duration of litigation, and the principle that Section 427 is intended to provide amelioration to the prisoner. The single transaction rule applies even when the offences are under different enactments, provided the underlying criminal act is the same.
On this section: Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence; core provision governing whether subsequent sentences run consecutively or concurrently; discretion vested in court unless person is undergoing life imprisonment
-
Avvaru Subbarayudu vs The State of A.p.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 427, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The police will resort to arrest of the accused only when prima facie case is found against any of the accused. Till then, on mere report of the defacto-complainant, law does not permit arresting the named accused persons straight away without there being prima facie proof of the allegations made against them. Criminal petitions seeking to compel arrest and interrogation of accused persons without prima facie evidence constitute abuse of the process of the High Court and abuse of Section 482 CrPC and are not maintainable.
On this section: Sentencing on offender already undergoing sentence - court held this section has no application to the present case
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 467
What have the courts held on Section 467 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Iqram v. State of Uttar Pradesh (16 Dec 2022) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 427, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of CrPC 427 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9502). Concurrent-vs-consecutive teaching carries to BNSS 467. Another 7 judgments on this section are set out below, 6 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2010 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 467 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNSS 467, section 467 BNSS, section 467 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 467 468 in hindi and bns 467 section. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 8 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Iqram v. State of Uttar Pradesh (16 Dec 2022).
What should I read with Section 467 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 141 (Imprisonment in default of security), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. It carries forward CrPC 427 (Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 467 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 467 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 467, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 35. When police may arrest without warrant881 words
- 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence823 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.