Premnarayan vs State of M.P.

Narain Singh "Azad", J.—This order shall dispose of the petitioner''s/convict''s written request, contained in his inland letter, which is registered as. The petitioner/convict has made a prayer that in a case, Court situated at Gadarawara, has sentenced him to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years for offences punishable u/s 394 read with section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and thereafter the Court of J.M.F.C. Itarsi, has also sentenced him to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and 6 months for an offence punishable u/s 224/34 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, both of these sentences may be ordered to run concurrently. The aforesaid request of the petitioner is to be treated u/s 427(1) and u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

On perusal of report called from Superintendent, Central Jail, Sagar, and the certified copies of the judgments pronounced in both the aforesaid cases, it is noted that in Sessions Trial No. 70/98, this petitioner Prem Narayan Malviya is convicted for offence punishable u/s 394 read with section 397 of the Indian Penal Code by Addl. Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, on 16-4-1999, who sentenced him to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years, along with other co-accused. Thereafter, on 21-11-2000, J.M.F.C. ltarsi, has also convicted this petition in Criminal Case No. 55/99, for offence punishable u/s 224 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and 6 months. On examining both the aforesaid judgments, it is also noted that in Sessions Trial No. 70/98, the incident dated 7th January, 1998, was in consideration whereas, in Criminal Case No. 55/99, this petitioner is convicted and sentenced in respect of an occurrence dated 20-7-1998.

It is found dictated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad and another, that when the second offence is distinct and different from the first one, the subsequent sentence should normally run consecutively as they are not covered u/s 427(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In Ammavasai and another vs. Inspector of Police, Valliyanure, reported in AIR 2000 SC 3544, of course an accused/petitioner, who was convicted and sentenced for similar offences, in three cases, in respect of three incidents, occurring in a short span of 3 to 5 months, was allowed the benefit of section 427(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and his sentences imposed on all three cases were ordered to run concurrently.

In Jai Kishan Vs. State of Haryana, , also an accused who was convicted for two offences on one date, and hence the Court directed that the sentences imposed in both the cases, shall run concurrently.

But in this case, this petitioner is convicted in respect of two totally different incidents, for different types of offences, which are proved to have been committed after a lapse of more than 6 months, therefore, in my opinion, he is not entitled for the benefit of section 427(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and to obtain a direction that the sentences imposed upon him in Sessions Trial No. 70/98 and Criminal Case No. 55/99, be executed concurrently.

Therefore, the petitioner''s/convict''s prayer is devoid of any merit, which accordingly stands disallowed and rejected.