Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljit Singh And Others vs U.T. Administration on 5 January, 2012
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
Criminal Appeal No. 282-SB of 2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 282-SB of 2002
Date of decision : 05.01.2012
Baljit Singh and others .....Appellants
VERSUS
U.T. Administration, Chandigarh ....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vishal Rattan Lamba, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate
for U.T., Chandigarh.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
This order shall dispose of Criminal Appeal Nos. 145-SB, 148-SB, 164-SB, 177-SB & 211-SB of 2001 and 282-SB of 2002.
Baljit Singh, Rajwinder Singh and Gurdas Chand, three appellants in different appeals have impugned their conviction and the award of sentences in different FIRs containing almost similar/same allegations.
Criminal Appeal No. 282-SB of 2002 is filed by the above noted three appellants to impugn their conviction under Section 392 read with Section 397/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence, which they are directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years coupled with fine of ` 200/- each. In addition, the Criminal Appeal No. 282-SB of 2002 2 appellants have also been convicted for an offence under Sections 452 and 434 IPC for which they were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each. In default of payment of respective fine, they were further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Criminal Appeal No. 145-SB of 2001 is filed by Gurdas Chand to impugn his conviction for offence under Section 411 IPC for which he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of ` 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 months. Criminal Appeal No. 177-SB of 2001 has been filed by the accused, Baljit Singh and Rajwinder Singh, who were convicted for offence under Section 392 read with Section 397/34 IPC in the same case. They were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each coupled with fine of ` 5000/-. In addition, they were also convicted for an offence under section 452 IPC for which they were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each coupled with fine of ` 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, they were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 9 months and 8 months each for the respective sentences for these offences.
The appellants have also filed two separate appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos. 148-SB and 164-SB of 2001 to impugn their conviction in another FIR registered under Sections 452, 382, 397 and 411/34 IPC. In this FIR, Gurdas Chand has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years coupled with fine of Criminal Appeal No. 282-SB of 2002 3 ` 5000/- for an offence under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years coupled with fine of ` 1000/- for his conviction under Section 452 IPC. In default of payment of fine of ` 5000/-, the appellant was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and nine months and in default of payment of fine of ` 1000/-, the appellant was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for eight months. These sentences were also directed to run concurrently. Baljit Singh and Rajwinder Singh have filed separate appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 164-SB of 2001 to impugn their conviction in the same FIR where they have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years coupled with fine of ` 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and nine months each for conviction under Section 392 read with section 397 IPC. They have further been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years coupled with fine of ` 1000/- for their conviction under Section 452 IPC. In case of default of payment of fine, they have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight months. These sentences were also directed to run concurrently.
There is yet another appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 211- SB of 2001, which is filed by appellant-Baljit Singh to impugn his conviction for offence under Section 411 IPC where he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years coupled with fine of ` 5000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment in addition.
All these appeals have now been set down for hearing Criminal Appeal No. 282-SB of 2002 4 together. All the three appellants are on bail. It is stated that the appellants have already undergone rigorous imprisonment for a period of 11 months. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in all these appeals have not made any submission on merits. He has simply pleaded that there is no order making the sentences to run concurrently in all these cases which were separately decided. The cases arising out FIR No. 254 dated 28.05.1995, FIR No. 5 dated 03.01.1995 , FIR No. 54 dated 09.05.1995 and FIR No. 50 dated 10.04.1995 were decided on the same day but yet no directions were issued making these different sentences to run concurrently. Counsel for the appellants, therefore, submits that he will restricts his prayer only to plead that the sentences in all these appeals be made to run concurrently as otherwise the consequences would be that all the appellants would have to undergo imprisonment of over 20 years. The learned counsel has placed strong reliance on the decision of Full Bench of this Court in Jang Singh Versus State of Punjab (P&H (FB), 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 323 , where it has been viewed that this Court would have ample power to make the sentences to run concurrently even if sentences are imposed in different trials when appeal or revision is pending before this court. The consideration for which the sentences can be made to run concurrently, have also been noticed in this case. It is observed that these cannot be exhaustively enumerated. The certain relevant factors which have been culled out from different judgments have been so indicated in the case of Jang Singh (Supra). These factors generally are the nature or character of the offences committed, the prior criminal record of the offender, Criminal Appeal No. 282-SB of 2002 5 character, his age and sex etc. and ghastly nature of the crime etc. It has also been observed that these are not only the reasons for which the Court can exercise its discretion. Such discretion is always open to the 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.
Counsel appearing for the Union Territory has not contested this prayer of the counsel for the appellants. He very fairly states that it would be entirely within the discretion of this Court whether to make the sentences to run concurrently or not.
Perusal of the appeals would show that in the year 1995 all the appellants have indulged in these acts of committing robbery etc. and in the process had robbed certain gold bangles from individual or from shops. In one case the wrist watch and car keys were recovered from them. The allegations in one of the case is for robbing ` 32,000/- and some rings etc. Noticeable feature is that the appellants were serving in police when they committed these offences. One of them was employed as a gunman of a VIP. This may be a factor which weigh very heavily against the appellant. The trial court has noticed this aspect. These offences have been committed by the appellant police officials while they were detailed to guard some important persons. This aspect may show that the appellant may not deserve any leniency. Making the sentences to run concurrently is not something which is by way of sympathy or leniency. This is a prayer being made in terms of legal rights and the legal consequences, which are to follow. The trial Court had always Criminal Appeal No. 282-SB of 2002 6 intended to award concurrent sentences as can be seen from the directions in each case. There is no order directing the sentences to run consecutively. These have to so run as there is no direction for running the sentences concurrently. If the sentences are made to run consecutively then the consequences would be that the each appellants would have to remain in incarceration for the period of over 20 years. That may appear very harsh. Even life convict would not have to undergo this prolonged period of imprisonment. It is pointed out that in such cases no remissions of sentences are even permitted.
Be that as it may, a case for making the sentences to run concurrently is made out. The appellants are on bail and there is no allegations against all of them having indulged in any sort of misbehaviour thereafter. This court have ample power to direct sentences to run concurrently when the appeal is pending before it. It would be just and proper to direct so. All the appeals are dismissed on merits.
However, sentences in all different appeals are directed to run concurrently. The fine imposed on all the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 282-SB of 2002 shall stand enhanced to sum of ` 5,000/- each. The fine imposed on the appellant-Gurdas Chand in Criminal Appeal Nos. 145-SB and 148-SB of 2001 shall stand enhanced to sum of ` 20,000/- and ` 10,000/- respectively. The fine imposed on the appellants-Baljit Singh and Rajwinder Singh in Criminal Appeal Nos. 164-SB and 177-SB of 2001 shall stand enhanced to sum of ` 10,000/- each and the fine imposed on appellant-Baljit Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 211-SB of 2001 shall stand enhanced to sum of Criminal Appeal No. 282-SB of 2002 7 ` 10,000/-. In the event of default of payment of fine, the order directing sentences to run concurrently would stand withdrawn.
The appeals are, otherwise, dismissed.
January 05, 2012 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE