Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sameer Ahmad vs State Of Haryana on 8 July, 2008
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Crl. Misc. No. 16532-M of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. 16532-M of 2008
Date of Decision : 08-07-2008
Sameer Ahmad
....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J This application is through jail which has been treated as petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The prayer in the application is for a direction that the sentences awarded to the petitioner should run concurrently.
As per the facts stated in the application, the petitioner is suffering imprisonment for 10, 10 and 7 years in District Jail, Bhondsi, Gurgaon in case FIR No. 230, 277, 217 for offences under Sections 395, 397 IPC relating to Police Station DLF and Udyog Vihar. He desires that his sentence in all the three cases should run concurrently.
The issue as to whether this Court in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C can direct the sentences to run concurrently, when the same have been awarded in different trials, has been considered authoritatively by a Full Bench of this Court in Jang Singh versus State of Punjab 2008(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 323 after considering Mehal Singh versus State of Haryana 1987 (2) Recent Criminal Reports, 240 and Balbir Singh versus State of Punjab, 1986 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 566. The relevant paras from Full Bench judgment in Jang Singh's (supra) are extracted below:-
"18. The consensus of the judicial opinion, as may emerge from different judgements passed by various High Courts Crl. Misc. No. 16532-M of 2008 2 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, seems to be that normal rule, as per Section 427 Cr.P.C., is that, a person who is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment and is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to an imprisonment or an imprisonment for life, then such imprisonment or imprisonment of life shall commence after the expiration of the imprisonment, to which he has been previously sentenced. This, however, would not be so if the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. Such direction to make the sentences to run concurrently, as per various decisions noted above, can be exercised by the trial Court or by the appellate Court or a revisional Court at the time of exercising appellate or revisional jurisdiction as well. However, if the trial Court does not pass any such direction for making the sentences to run concurrently and appeal or revision against said decision is also decided, then it may not be open for a person to seek such direction for making the sentences to run concurrently by moving an application under Sections 482/427 Cr.P.C. The view taken by one set of the High Courts that such an application can be entertained while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., would no more appear to be a good law in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.R.Kudva case (supra). We are, thus, bound to take this view that this discretion though available with the trial Court, appellate Court or the revisional Court while holding trial or entertaining appeal or revision but would not be so available to be exercised in isolation when application in this regard is moved either under Sections 482 or 427 Cr.P.C. What principle and consideration will govern the exercise of this discretion, as already noted above cannot be exhaustively enumerated certain relevant factors, as can be Crl. Misc. No. 16532-M of 2008 3 culled out from different judgments referred to above, may give an indication where such discretion may be exercised. These factors generally would be the nature or character of the offences committed, the prior criminal record of the offender, character his age and sex etc. ghastly nature of the crime. The offender being habitual would also be the factor, which can be relevantly taken into consideration. It may be stated at the cost of repetition that these are not the only reasons for which the Court can exercise this discretion. Discretion always is open to be exercised by any Court dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case on any relevant or valid consideration as may be considered so by the Court while holding the trial or deciding the case at the stage of appeal or revision. It may require a notice that Section 427 Cr.P.C as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court is aimed at amelioration and this aspect may also require to be kept in view while exercising the discretion."
Once issue has already been settled authoritatively by a Full Bench of this Court opining that discretion to direct sentences to run concurrently lies only with the trial Court, the Appellate Court or the revisional Court and no petition for the same is maintainable under Section 482 and 427 of the Code, no relief could possibly be granted to the petitioner in a petition filed under Sections 482 and 427 of the Code.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
July 8, 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) rekha Judge