Pargat Singh vs State of Punjab

A.P. Chowdhri, J.

Only a few facts need to be stated in order to deal with the question raised in this petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code).

Four persons were tried under Sections 148/302/307/34 and section 404, Indian Penal Code, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, in Sessions trial No. 33 of 1979. The case related to a double murder, namely, of Hazara Singh and Rameshwar Singh, and attempt to murder two other persons, Natha Singh and Jagdish Parshad. Pargat Singh and Jagraj Singh were convicted. The remaining two accused were acquitted by the trial Court. For the murder of Hazara Singh and Rameshwar Singh the convicted accused were awarded death sentence. They were further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of 1,000/ each for attempt to murder Jagdish Parshad under Section 307/34, Indian Penal Code in default of payment of which they were further sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. They were further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/ each and in default of payment of fine to a further rigorous imprisonment for one year under Ss 307/34 for attempt to murder Natha Singh. Jagraj Singh was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years u/s 404, Indian Penal Code, for dishonestly misappropriating the gun of Rameshwar Singh deceased. In appeal and reference made for confirmation of the death sentence, this Court confirmed death sentence against Pargat Singh but awarded life imprisonment to Jagraj Singh for both the murders in question. The remaining sentences awarded by the trial Court were maintained. In SLP decided on March 24, 1982, the death sentence of Pargat Singh was converted into one for life imprisonment.

Through this petition it has been prayed that the sentence of imprisonment awarded under various counts be made to run concurrently.

It is not disputed that the trial Court, or appellate Court or the Supreme Court was competent to order the various sentences to run concurrently when it was seized of the case. The question is whether after the disposal of the case/appeal, it is open to this Court to make a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently in view of the provisions of section 362 of the Code. It also requires consideration whether the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code can be used by the Court when there is a provision laying down a specific bar against alteration or review of a judgment or final order except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. We find that there is divergence of opinion on the above question.

A Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sher Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1982(1) Recent CR 696 ; after reviewing the case law concluded that the consensus of judicial opinion amongst different High Courts appeared to be that the inherent powers of the High Court can be invoked under Section 482 if the trial Court or the appellate Court or the revisional Court do not exercise its discretion under Section 427(1) of the Code. The same conclusion was reached by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Surja Ram v. The State, AIR 1963 Rajasthan 202. A Single Bench of this Court made the sentence of imprisonment concurrent in Raj Want Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1990(1) Recent CR 540 without going into the divergence of opinion which exists on the subject.

On the other hand, a Full Bench of Delhi High Court in Gopal Dass v. The State, AIR 1978 Delhi 138 held that powers under Section 482 cannot be exercised to direct subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the earlier sentence. However, it was further held that in suitable cases the Court can treat a petition under Section 482 as a petition under Section 397 and grant the necessary relief. A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Mulayam Singh v. The State, 1974 Criminal Law Journal 1397, held that sentence awarded and the directions given in that behalf i.e. whether they shall run concurrently or consecutively constitute integral parts of the judgment and the same cannot be reviewed or altered after the judgment had been pronounced. It was further held that it would be competent for the High Court in the exercise of its inherent powers to direct that the sentence of imprisonment under a subsequent conviction shall run concurrently with a previous sentence even if the stage for the exercise of discretion under Section 397(1) of the old Code is over, if the case fall in any of the three categories mentioned in section 561A, analogous to section 482 of the present Code, namely, to give effect to any order made under the Code, or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The aforesaid question arose in Kapoor Singh v. State of Punjab, 1987(2) Recent CR 383. D.S. Tewatia, J. (as his Lordship then was) referred to State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Agarwala `etc.'', AIR 1979 Supreme Court 87, Naresh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1981 CLR 637 (Supreme Court) and Ajit Singh and another v. State or Punjab, 1982(1) CLR 363 (Full Bench of this Court) and held that the High Court was not competent to review its order with regard to the directions in the run of the sentence imposed under various counts in exercise of its inherent powers after the judgment had been pronounced. Doing so would amount to reviewing the judgment which was expressly prohibited under Section 362 of the Code.

Mr. R.S. Ghai, learned counsel for the petitioners, invited our attention to paragraph 2 of the aforesaid case, which shows that the trial Court had expressly ordered the sentence of imprisonment under various counts to run consecutively. In other words in the facts of that case, there was an express order making the sentence to run consecutively and in the petition under Section 482 what was sought was a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. In the peculiar facts of that case, therefore, it was argued that giving of the directions would amount to reviewing the original order.

We are relieved of going into the question as, in out opinion, the present case is clearly covered under subsection (2) of section 427 of the Code. A perusal of sections 31 and 427(1) on the one hand and section 427(2) of the Code on the other hand, brigs out the distinction between a sentence of Imprisonment for a term and life imprisonment. The principle governing a sentence of imprisonment other than imprisonment for life is that unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence the sentences shall run consecutively. The principle laid down in section 427(2), on the other hand, is that where a person is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life and he is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to : (a) imprisonment for a term; or (b) imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. The reason for making this provision apparently is that the sentence of imprisonment for life implies sentence for the remaining natural life of the sentence. In such a case, therefore, it would be illogical to make the subsequent sentence consecutive. The mandate of law contained in subsection (2) of section 427, therefore, is that where a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced subsequently, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence.

Reverting to the facts of the present case, both the petitioners have been finally sentenced to life imprisonment for the murders of Hazara Singh and Rameshwar Singh. They have also been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for attempt to murder Natha Singh and Jagdish Parshad. In terms of section 427(2) of the Code therefore, their imprisonments have to run concurrently without expressly saying so. Since the present petition seeks only the above clarification, it does not involve any review or alteration of the judgment which became final with the disposal of the SLP by the Supreme Court in 1982.

For the reasons discussed above, the said clarification is hereby made, namely, the sentence in the case of Pargat Singh and Jagraj Singh imposed under various counts in the aforesaid case shall be taken to have been running concurrently in term of the provisions of section 427(2) of the Code. The petition is allowed in these terms.