Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This petition has been moved by Jaipal under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking his pre-mature release and for further holding that he has been illegally deprived of the benefits of pre-mature release and his further detention has become violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and that he is entitled to to be released forthwith on usual terms and conditions.

The facts in brief are that the petitioner along with his co- accused Vajinder Singh was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat in case FIR No.162 dated 27.3.1987 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, Police Station City Sonepat vide judgment dated 25.2.1989 (Annexure P.1). While he was undergoing such imprisonment in District Jail, Karnal, he failed to surrender in jail after having exhausted the period of parole and furlough. He was tried under Section 8 read with Section 9 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for brevity, `the Act') and awarded various punishments on account of late surrender in jail. Vide judgment Annexure P.2/A, he was convicted and sentenced by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- under Section 9 of the Act or in default of the same, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days in case FIR No.580 dated 11.10.1998. Vide judgment Annexure P.2/B, he was convicted and sentenced by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- under the said Sections or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days in case FIR No.318 dated 4.8.1999. Vide judgment Annexure P.2/C, he was convicted and sentenced by the said Court to undergo imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- under the afore-mentioned Sections and in default of payment of the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for five days. Vide judgment Annexure P.2/D, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- under the above-mentioned Sections and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for five days in case FIR No.297 dated 9.10.2002, Police Station City Sonepat. On appeal, the sentence was reduced to four months though the fine was kept intact vide judgment Annexure P.2/D1 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. Vide judgment Annexure P.2/E, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- under Section 9 of the Act or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for five days in case FIR No.91 dated 12.4.2004 under Section 8 read with Section 9 of the Act, Police Station City Sonepat. On appeal, the sentence was reduced to four months vide judgment Annexure P.2/E1 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. That the sentences awarded to the petitioner vide judgments referred to above have to run concurrently with imprisonment for life awarded vide judgment Annexure P.1.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection.

Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that Section 9 of the Act has been interpreted by this Court vis-a-vis Section 427 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case Ram Chander v. The Inspector General of Prison, Punjab, 1995(3) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 228. In view of Jang Singh v. State of Punjab, 2008(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 323 (Full Bench), a person who is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life, if he is sentenced on a subsequent conviction, then such subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence and no separate order is required for concurrent running of sentence. The recent judgment in the case of Naresh v. State of Haryana, Criminal Misc. No. M-31814 of 2008 decided on 31.3.2009 based on Ram Chander's case (supra) fully covers the case of the petitioner. The petitioner has already completed the terms of sentences awarded vide judgments annexed as Annexures P.2/A, P.2/B, P.2/C, P.2/D, P.2/D1, P.2/E1. He cannot be made to undergo a sentence now on account of the sentences awarded vide afore-mentioned judgments. For the reasons best known to the jail authorities, they are not prepared to read the provisions of Section 427(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They are of the view that after the petitioner is released pre-maturely in FIR No.162 dated 27.3.1987 under Section 302/34 of IPC, Police Station City Sonepat, thereafter, he will have to undergo the sentences awarded vide judgments referred to above. The action of the jail authorities in not treating the sentences awarded vide judgments Annexures P.2/A, P.2/B, P.2/C, P.2/D, P.2/D1, P.2/E1 to run concurrently with life imprisonment awarded vide judgment Annexure P.1 is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

In re: Jang Singh (supra), also it has been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court that "Direction to make the sentences to run concurrently 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. 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 and 427 of Cr.P.C." Thus, the matter can be viewed from another angle. On viewing the matter in the light of afore-extracted observations from M.R. Kudva's case (supra) as well as Jang Singh's case (supra), this petition is not maintainable as the prayer for the relief sought in it could have been made before the trial Court when Annexures P.2/A, P.2/B, P.2/C, P.2/D, P.2/D1, P.2/E1 were delivered or before the Appellate Court, when Annexure P.2/D1 and P.2/E1 were passed. Thus, if the matter is viewed in this perspective, this petition loses its maintainability. Palpably, the petitioner repeated the offence under Section 8 read with Section 9 over and over again. To conclude finally, the sentences imposed vide judgments Annexures P.2/A, P.2/B, P.2/C, P.2/D, P.2/D1 and P.2/E1 cannot be made to run concurrently with the life imprisonment awarded vide judgment Annexure P.1 dated 25.2.1989 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat.