Om Parkash vs State of Haryana

Pritpal Singh, J.

In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Om Parkash has prayed that the sentences awarded to him in two separate cases be ordered to run concurrently.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar, vide an order dated February 19, 1975 (Annexure P.1) convicted the petitioner under Section 394, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment.

Subsequently, Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide an order dated October 6, 1975 (Annexure P.2) convicted the petitioner under Section 392, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

A Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 2158M of 1985 (Mehal Singh v. The State of Haryana), 1987(2) RCR(Crl.) 240 (P&H) : held as under :

"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 concurrently or consecutively. In the absence of any direction, the sentences are normally to run consecutively. The petitioner through the Criminal Miscellaneous petition has prayed that the sentences 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 this Court vide its judgment dated 1st 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 noting to indicate that the conviction and sentence of one case has 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 the matter, this petition is allowed and it is directed that the subsequent sentence of imprisonment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide order Annexure P.2, shall run concurrently with the previous sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar (Annexure P.1). This petition stands disposed of in these terms.