Gurnam Singh vs State of Punjab

A.P. Chowdhari, J.

Facts necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition are that the petitioner was undergoing life imprisonment in case FIR No. 105 dated 28.11.75, P. S. Bhadson, District Patiala, when he was again sentenced to life imprisonment in another case FIR No. 71 dated 12.9.86, P. S. Amargarh, District Sangrur. It was not brought to the notice of the Court at the time of the decision of the latter case that the petitioner was already undergoing life imprisonment following conviction in an earlier case. The result was that no direction was given by the Court that the life imprisonment awarded in the second case would run concurrently with the first case noted above. Through this criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioner seeks suitable directions that the later sentence would run concurrently with the earlier one.

We have heard Shri R. S. Ghai, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. S. Dhaliwal, learned DAG Punjab for the State. The relevant provision is in Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as under :

"427. Sentence of offender already sentenced for another offence, (1) when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or, imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence :

Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by art order under section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately. (2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence."

A reading of both the subsections of Section 427 of the Code unmistakably shows that there is a clear distinction between imprisonment for a term on the one hand and imprisonment for life on the other. Subsection (1) of Section 427 of the Code deals with a situation where a person is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for a term as distinguished from imprisonment for life and such a person is again sentenced to an imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life on a subsequent conviction. The general rule laid down in subsection (1) is that unless the court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence, the subsequent sentence shall commence at the expiration of the earlier sentence.

Subsection (2) is an exception to the above general rule. It lays down that where a person is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life and he is again sentenced to life imprisonment on a subsequent conviction, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence.

Section 427 of the Code came up for interpretation before the apex Court in Ranjit Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and anr., 1991(3) Recent Criminal Reports 470 (SC) : AIR 1991 SC 2296 . Their Lordships referred to Gopal Vinayak Godsa v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1961 SC 600) and Maru Ram v. Union of India (AIR 1980 SC 1147) in which it was laid down that imprisonment for life is a sentence for the remainder of the life of the offender unless the remaining sentence is commuted or remitted by the the appropriate authority. It was, therefore observed, "this being so at the stage of sentencing by the Court on a subsequent conviction the earlier sentence of imprisonment for life must be understood in this manner and, therefore, there can be no question of a subsequent sentence of impprisonment for a term or for life running consecutively which is the general rule laid down in subsection (1) of Section 427". Their Lordships further laid down, the sentence on a subsequent conviction of imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life can only be superimposed to the earlier life sentence and certainly not added to it since extending the life of the offender or for that matter anyone is beyond human might." It was clarified by their Lordships that any remission or commutation granted in respect of the earlier sentence of life imprisonment will not ipso facto be counted towards the subsequent life imprisonment which would from the date of its imposition be unaffected by any such remission or commputation in respect of the earlier sentence alone. This clarification, however, does not debar the authorities concerned to grant remission or commputation in respect of both the earlier life imprisonment as well as the life imprisonment awarded in the subsequent case. We may further add that the subsequent life imprisonment will start running concurrently with the earlier life imprisonment only from the date the subsequent life imprisonment was imposed by the Court. In the nature of things the subsequent life imprisonment cannot date back to the commencement of the earlier life imprisonment for the obvious reason that at the time of the commission of the earlier offence, the subsequent offence may not have been committed and the subsequent imprisonment for life was not in existence.

We may refer to some decisions of this court in which the same view was taken. These are Harchand Singh @ Chand Singh v. State of Punjab, 1987(1) Recent CR 177 (DB) , Karnail Singh alias Fakir Singh v. State of Punjab and ors., 1990(2) RCR 103 , Pargat Singh and anr. v. The State of Punjab, 1991(1) RCR 199 (DB).

We, therefore, allow the petition and direct as follows :

The sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the petitioner in later case FIR No. 71 dated 12.9.86, P. S. Amargarh, District Sangrur, shall be deemed to have started running concurrently from the date the same was awarded by the trial court along with the sentence of life imprisonment which the petitioner was undergoing in the earlier case FIR No. 105 dated 28.11.75, P. S. Bhadson, District Patiala;

ii) the remission or commutation granted by the appropriate authority in the sentences of life imprisonment awarded in the earlier case shall not ipso facto be given effect in the sentence of life imprisonment awarded in the later case, and,

iii) it will, however., be open to the appropriate, authorities to grant the benefit of remission/commutation in both the sentences of life imprisonment.

The criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed in these terms. A copy of this order shall be sent to the jail authorities where the petitioner is serving both the sentences of life imprisonment so that the above directions can be given effect to,