Het Ram vs State of Punjab

K.K. Srivastava, J.

The sole point that arises for determination in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is whether the sentence awarded the convict in three cases, two arisen out of one F.I.R. No. 101 dated 17.4.1987 and the other from F.I.R. No. 187 dated 8.10.1987 and the sentences were not ordered to run concurrently. In para No. 8 of the petition, the details of the cases in which the petitioner was sentenced by the learned Magistrate Ist Class Abohar and the appeals were filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the conviction and sentence were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. These details are as under :

Sr.No. Detail of cases decided by the trial Court Detail of appeal No. filed and dismissed.

Case No. 3772 of 294.88 decided on 9.11.1993 F.I.R. No. 101 of 17.4.87 Appeal No. 32 of 1993 decided on 4.11.1995,

Case No. 3752 of 29.4.1989 decided on 9.11.1993 F.I.R. No. 101 of 17.4.1987 Appeal No. 33 of 1993 decided on 4.11.1995

Case No. 1642 of 15.12.88 decided on 3.12.1993 F.I.R. No. 187 of 8.10.87. Appeal No. 36 of 1993 decided on 4.11.1995

It has been averred in the petition that in all the cases at Serial No. 1 to 3, orders were passed on 4.11.1995 by the trial Court. The judgments were silent regarding the concurrence of the sentence qua the petitioner. The appellate court dismissed the application of the petitioner regarding the sentence to run concurrently vide order dated 8.4.1997 (Copy Annexure P/1). Perusal of the trial Court judgment will go to show that appeal No. 32 of 1993 arising out of F.I.R. No. 101 dated 17.4.1987, appeal No. 33 of 1993 arising out of F.I.R. No. 101 dated 17.4.1987 and appeal No. 36 of 1993 arising out of F.I.R. No. 187 of 8.10.1987 were decided on the same date i.e. 4.11.1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 427 Cr.P.C. which provides that sentence of offender already sentenced for another offence to run concurrently. Section 427 Cr.P.C. reads as under :

"427. Sentence on 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 an 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 concurrent with such previous sentence."

Section 427 subsection (1) inter alia provides that imprisonment of subsequent sentence shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which such convict has been previously sentenced, unless the Court direct that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. It is obviously discretionary on the part of the Court to pass an order that the subsequent sentence should run concurrently. Section 427(2) of Cr.P.C. deals with such offender who was already undergoing imprisonment for life and who subsequently sentenced to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, subsequent sentence so awarded shall run concurrently with the previous imprisonment for life. The provision of Section 427 subsection (2) Cr.P.C. is obviously based on the principle that when an offender is already undergoing imprisonment for life, any subsequent sentence is to be served during the life time of that offender and that being so, subsection (2) makes it mandatory that subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. In Section 427, Subsection (1) Cr.P.C. such is not the criteria and the discretion has been given to the Court to order subsequent sentence/sentences passed on such offenders who are already undergoing sentences to rune concurrently.

Coming to the facts of the present case, out of two cases No. 3712 and 3752, both of 1993 arisen out of one and the same F.I.R. No. 101 of 17.4.1987 and both the cases have been decided on the same date i.e. 4.11.1995. One of these cases sentence has to be awarded to the offender to run prior to the sentence awarded in the last case. So far as case No. 1642 of 15.12.1988 arisen out of F.I.R. No. 187 of 8.10.1987 is concerned the same was also decided on 4.11.1995. As mentioned earlier, these three cases have been decided incidentally on the same date i.e. 4.11.1995. In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the discretion given to the Court, the petitioner in my considered view ought to be directed to undergo the sentences passed subsequently in two cases referred to above concurrently with the sentence awarded in the case shown at Serial No. 1 i.e. case No. 3772 of 29.4.1988.

The petition is accordingly allowed and the sentence awarded subsequently in the cases mentioned at serial No. 1, 2 and 4 are ordered to run concurrently.