High Courts

Mehal Singh vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 17 May 1985 · Citation: (1985) 05 P&H CK 0069

HON’BLE JUDGES
Surinder Singh, J and K.S.Tiwana, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2158-M of 1965
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 · 305 words

K.S. Tiwana, J.

1.

Mehal Singh, petitioner, who has filed this Criminal Misc No. 2158M of 1985, was tried by Shri H.L. Garg, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, for the offences under Sections 392. 307. 353 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code After trial, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Alongwith this, some other sentences of short terms were passed against him for the other offences. Against this conviction, he filed Criminal Appeal No. 597SB of 1980 which was dismissed by this Court on 26th October, 1982.

2.

Mehal Singh was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, for an offence under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Alongwith this, some other short term sentences were passed against him for the other offences. Criminal Appeal No. 596 DB of 1981 was filed against this conviction which was dismissed by this Court on 1st February, 1982.

3.

As the petitioner was tried separately for these offences and the 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 conflictly or consecutively. In the absence of any direction, the sentences are normally to run consecutive. 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.

4.

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 this Court vide its judgment dated 1st February, 1962, shall run concurrently with the previous one.