Punjab-Haryana High Court
Khushi Ram Alias Kalu vs State Of Haryana And Others on 27 August, 2012
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Misc. No. M-14501 of 2011 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-14501 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision : 27.08.2011
Khushi Ram alias Kalu ......Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. S.S. Siao, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, AAG, Haryana
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
****
RITU BAHRI , J.
The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 427 Cr.P.C is for concurrent running of sentences in three cases, mentioned below:-
F.I.R No. Sentence F.I.R No. 333 dated 21.12.2002 10 years and fine of ` 10,000/- vide u/s 394/412/34 IPC, P.S. Sampla, judgment dated 16.03.2005 passed Distt. Rohtak by A.S.J Rohtak F.I.R No. 231 dated 17.09.2007 7 years and fine of ` 1000/- vide u/s 392/397/34 IPC, P.S. Sampla, judgment dated 30.04.2009 passed Distt. Rohtak by A.S.J Rohtak F.I.R No. 279 dated 11.11.2007 1 year + ` 250/- u/s 353/34 IPC u/s 332/353/307/34 IPC, R/W 25 4 years + ` 500/- u/s 307 IPC and Arms Act, P.S. Kalanaur, Distt.
Rohtak 1 year + ` 500/- u/s 25 Arms Act The petitioner has filed three different appeals against each sentence i.e Crl. A. No. 745-SB of 2005, Crl. A. No. 1925-SB of Crl. Misc. No. M-14501 of 2011 (O&M) -2- 2009 and Crl. A. No. 41-SB of 2010, which are pending before the Court for adjudication. Till now, the petitioner has undergone 6 years, 06 months and 22 days.
The prayer of the petitioner is that as per Section 427 Cr.P.C, a direction can be given for running of sentences concurrently. Section 427 Cr.P.C reads as under:-
427.Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence "(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.
Reference has been made to a judgment passed by Bombay High Court in a case of Satnam Singh Puransing Gill vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009(1) R.C.R Criminal 703 .
As per custody certificate dated 18.05.2012 issued by Dy. Supdt. Distt. Prison, Karnal, the petitioner has undergone 7 Crl. Misc. No. M-14501 of 2011 (O&M) -3- years 7 months and 23 days in F.I.R No. 333 dated 21.12.2002, in F.I.R No. 231 dated 17.09.2007, he has undergone 01 years 05 months and 18 days and in F.I.R No. 279 dated 11.11.2007, the petitioner has undergone 01 year 10 months and 23 days. One case is pending against him i.e F.I.R No. 109 datd 10.05.2006 u/s 8/9 of Parole Act, P.S. Kalanaur. He is on bail in this case. There are two decided cases i.e F.I.R No. 354 dated 31.01.2007 u/s 397 IPC. He was convicted and sentenced for the period already undergone on 24.04.2008. F.I.R No. 365 dated 19.09.2007 u/s 392 IPC and 25 of Arms Act. He was convicted and sentenced for the period already undergone on 04.05.2009. He was convicted and sentenced in F.I.R No. 231 dated 17.09.2007 u/s 392/397/34 IPC to undergo R.I for a period of seven year and fine of Rs. 1,000/-
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of M.R. Kudwa vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2007(1) R.C.R Criminal 868 while examining the provision of Section 427 Cr.P.C has held that these provisions can be revoked in the trial Court or in the Appellate Court. A petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for the said purpose is not the appropriate remedy. In para 8 of the judgment, reference has been placed by learned counsel in Ammavassi and another vs. Inspector of Police, Valliyanur and others, AIR 2000 SC 3544 in which convict was to face the trial for 28 to 35 years in 5 different cases. He was claiming benefit u/s 427 Cr.P.C, Hon'ble the Supreme Court had applied 427 Cr.P.C in 3 cases but in 2 cases, sentences were to run consecutively.
In the facts of the present case, three appeals are Crl. Misc. No. M-14501 of 2011 (O&M) -4- pending for decision in this Court. The petitioner can make such prayer at the time of hearing of the appeal. Section 482 Cr.P.C is not the appropriate remedy.
Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE 27.08.2011 G.Arora