Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ved Parkash vs State Of Haryana on 7 October, 2009
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
Crl. Misc. No.M-19400 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M-19400 of 2009
Date of decision:07.10.2009
Ved Parkash ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
Coram:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate as Amicus Curiae
for the petitioner.
Mr. Pardeep Virk, DAG, Haryana.
L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL)
Further reply on behalf of State of Haryana filed today in Court by learned State counsel is taken on record. Copy given to the opposite counsel.
Orders/judgments could not be procured in three cases whereas order passed in one more case has been annexed.
Learned State counsel on instructions from Naresh Kumar, ASI states that no appeal has been preferred by the petitioner against the orders/judgments in which he has been sentenced.
Heard.
Ved Parkash convict gave application in jail to Hon'ble Administrative Judge. The said application has been registered as instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C) on judicial side. The petitioner mentioned in the application that he is undergoing imprisonment for six months each in Crl. Misc. No.M-19400 of 2009 -2- 14 cases in Distt. Jail, Karnal since 19.09.2005. He had stood surety for unknown accused. He had already undergone sentence in 8 cases and was undergoing sentence in 9th case. The petitioner prayed that his sentence in the remaining 5 cases be ordered to run concurrently.
On the preceding date of hearing, reply was filed on behalf of the State annexing therewith judgments/orders passed in 6 cases. However, it was stated after seeking instructions that judgments/orders have been collected in 10 cases. Along with further reply filed today in Court, copy of order passed in one more case has been annexed. However, in the reply filed on the preceding date of hearing, it has been stated that sentences were awarded to the petitioner in all the 14 cases under Section 446 Cr.P.C. It is also mentioned by the petitioner himself in the petition that he has been sentenced for standing surety. It is thus apparent that penalty under Section 446 Cr.P.C was imposed on the petitioner and in default of payment thereof, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months in each case as is also evident from the orders of some cases placed on record by the State.
Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jang Singh versus State of Haryana, 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 323 has held that petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not maintainable for directing concurrent running of sentences in two or more cases, although such relief can be granted by appellate or revisional Court. However, in the instant case, no appeal or revision is said to be pending against the orders vide which penalty was imposed on the petitioner under Crl. Misc. No.M-19400 of 2009 -3- Section 446 Cr.P.C and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment in default of payment of penalty.
It is also debatable if sentence of imprisonment imposed in default of payment of fine or penalty in different cases can be ordered to run concurrently. In any event, petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for directing concurrent running of sentences in two or more cases is not maintainable, in view of judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jang Singh (Supra).
In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is dismissed. This order be conveyed to the petitioner through jail authorities.
( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 07.10.2009 A.Kaundal