Joginder Singh vs State of Punjab

K.K. Srivastava, J.

The petitioner by means of this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. prays for the sentences imposed on him in five criminal cases registered on the basis of five separate FIRs under section 409 IPC in which he has been convicted under section 409 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/ each, the substantive sentences so awarded in all the cases be ordered to run concurrently.

It appears that the petitionr was tried separately in five cases in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nakodar under section 409 IPC and was convicted in each of the five cases by separate judgments on 28.7.1994 and awarded substantive sentence of one year RI and also to pay fine of Rs. 500/ in each case.

The petitioner moved an application before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nakodar for ordering the substantive sentences to run concurrently but his application was rejected on the ground that it is neither desirable nor advisable to order for running of concurrent sentences because 11 months had already passed after the petitioner was convicted and sentenced.

Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nakodar, the petitioner moved this petition.

Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent to put in appearance through the DAG, Punjab who sought time to file reply but did not file any reply to the petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the copies of the judgments delivered by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nakodar in all the five cases decided on 28.7.1994 vide copies Annexures P2 P3, P4, P5 and P6.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AAG, Punjab.

The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Sections 31 and 427 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short to be referred as ''Code'') and pointed out that these sections of the Code empowered the court to order the substantive sentences imposed on an accused to run concurrently.

The learned Judicial Magistrate has also referred to Section 31 of the Code and has, in fact, quoted the section in his order. He also mentioned in his order that he was alive to the situation that when a person is convicted for trial of two or more offences then the court could pass sentences to run concurrently. He, however, declined to grant the necessary relief on the ground that the period of 11 months has elapsed since he delivered the judgments in the aforesaid five cases.

The ground on which the learned Magistrate has refused to consider the application of the petitioner does not appear to be a valid ground. Section 31 of the Code as also Section 427 of the Code specifically empower the court (sic) to run concurrently. Section 31 of the Code interalia provides for sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial and enables the court to direct that such punishments shall run concurrently. It further provides that in case the court does not direct that such punishments shall run concurrently then the same shall be taken to run consecutively.

Section 427 of the Code provides for sentence on offender already sentenced to another offence and it inter alia provides that 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 Code directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. (Emphasis supplied by me).

Thus there is sufficient force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that unless where the specific reasons for not ordering the substantive sentences awarded in five separate trials, though decided on the same date, to run concurrently, normally the course lies in favour of the sentences to run concurrently.

In a Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sher Singh v. State, 1989(1) Recent Criminal Reports 696 : 1989 CLJ 632 which has been quoted in the petition itself, it was held that the inherent powers of the High Court can be invoked under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. even if the trial court or the appellate court or the revisional court has not exercised its discretion under section 427(1) Cr.P.C. The inherent powers of the High Court are not in any way fettered by Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. and it can be invoked at any stage even if there is no such order passed under section 427(1) Cr.P.C. by the trial court or the appellate court or the revisional court and even though the conviction has become final.

In view of what has been discussed above, the petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed and the substantive sentences awarded to the petitioner by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nakodar in five separate criminal cases under the offence punishable under section 409 IPC in case No. 15/2 of 1989, case No. 13/2 of 1989, Case No. 12/2 of 1989, Case No. 7/2 of 1989 and case No. 14/2 of 1989 are ordered to run concurrently.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.