Dev Raj vs State of Haryana

Pritpal Singh, J.

These two revision petitions (Crl. Revision Nos. 249 and 250 of 1987) are being disposed of together which were admitted only to consider whether the sentences passed therein should be ordered to run concurrently.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, vide his orders dated 20th and 22nd of April, 1985, convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.

The petitioner was also convicted under Section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, vide his order dated February 22, 1986 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/, in default of payment of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months vide order dated 25th February, 1986.

A Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 2158M of 1985 (Mehal Singh v. The State of Haryana), 1987(2) RCR(Crl.) 240 (P&H) : decided on May 17, 1985 , held as under :

"As the petitioner was tried separately for those offences and the previous conviction was not brought to the notice of the Court which convicted him subsequently, no order was passed whether the sentences were to run concurrently or consecutively. In the absence of any direction, the sentences are normally to run consecutively. The petitioner through this Criminal Miscellaneous petition has prayed that the sentence passed against him in the subsequent trial, be directed to run concurrently with the previous one. We do not find any hindrance in our way to allow the prayer made by the petitioner. Section 427(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code clearly provides for this. It is, therefore, directed that the subsequent sentence of imprisonment passed against the petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, and affirmed by this Court vide its judgment dated 1st February, 1982, shall run concurrently with the previous one."

The dictum of this judgment is fully applicable to the present case. The petitioner was tried separately in the two said cases and there is nothing to indicate that the conviction and sentence of one case had been brought to the notice of the Court convicting him in the other case. In such circumstances the Court could not consider whether the sentences were to run concurrently in the two cases or consecutively.

In the light of Mehal Singh''s case (supra) it is directed that the subsequent sentence of imprisonment passed against the petitioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, vide his order dated February 24, 1986 shall run concurrently with the previous sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, on April 22, 1985. These Revision Petitions stand disposed of in these terms.

Petitioin disposed of.