CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Dilawar Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 18 January 2011 · Citation: (2011) 01 P&H CK 0100

HON’BLE JUDGES
Nirmaljit Kaur, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 427, 482 · Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) — Section 15
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CRM No. M 11128 of 2010
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 395 words

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.—This is a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C praying to exercise discretion u/s 427(1) Cr.P.C to run concurrent two consecutive sentences of imprisonment totalling 10 + 10 years passed in two convictions under same Section 15 of NDPS Act in two FIR Nos. 103 and 140 dated 05.09.1995 and 13.11.1998 by the same judge during the year 2008.

2.

The only argument raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C of this Court is not in any way fettered by Section 427(1) Cr.P.C to make two consecutive sentences to run concurrently even if the conviction had become final.

3.

Reply has been filed. As per the reply, the Petitioner had earlier also filed CRM M 35398 of 2009 before this Court, praying to run both the sentences concurrently. The said criminal miscellaneous was dismissed vide order dated 15.12.2009. The same reads as under:

The Petitioner prays that the sentences awarded to him, which are to run consecutively be made to run concurrently. This petition has been filed by invoking jurisdiction u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure The counsel concedes that no revision or appeal is pending before this Court against the conviction in both the cases separately recorded. Appeal against the conviction filed before the Hon''ble Supreme Court has also been dismissed as per Counsel. Under such circumstances, the petition to make the sentences to run concurrently would not be maintainable as held by this Court in Jang Singh v. State of Punjab 2008 (1) RCR 323. Dismissed.

4.

It is stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the said Criminal Miscellaneous was dismissed in urgent motion directing to make out a case when an appeal is not pending. The said contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner cannot be sustained in as much as a perusal of the order shows that no such direction was issued and no liberty to file fresh was given. Moreover, the said criminal miscellaneous was dismissed by observing that the appeal against the conviction filed before the Hon''ble Supreme Court has also been dismissed and accordingly, the present petition is not maintainable in view of decision rendered by this Court in Jang Singh v. State of Punjab 2008 (1) RCR 323. The second petition with same prayer and for same cause of action is not maintainable. Dismissed.