Jagat Ram vs State (U.T.Chandigarh)

Pritpal Singh, J.—In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Jagat Ram has prayed that the sentences awarded to him in two separate cases be ordered to run concurrently.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, vide an order dated December 21, 1985, convicted the petitioner under Section 16 (1) (a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ in default of payment of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

The petitioner was also convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge, Chandigarh, vide his order date May 29, 1981, as under :

Under Section Sentence awarded

420, I.P.C. Rigourous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 5000/, in default of payment of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

468, I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/, in default of payment of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

471, I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/, in default of payment of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

120B, I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/, in default of payment of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. The appeal against this order of the learned Special Judge, Chandigarh, was dismissed by this Court on June 3, 1983.

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

"As the petitioner was tried separately for these offences and 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 the Court vide its judgment dated Ist 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 said two 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 this view of this matter, this petition is allowed and it is directed that the subsequent sentence of imprisonment passed against the petitioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala vide order dated Dec. ember 21, 1985, shall run concurrently with the previous sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Chandigarh, vide his order dated May 29, 1981. This petition stands disposed of in these terms.