Rattan Lal vs State of Punjab

K.K. Srivastava, J.

This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying for the sentence awarded to the petitioner Rattan Lal in Criminal Revision No. 403 of 1987 and Criminal Revision No. 669 of 1986 to run concurrently.

FIR No. 911 of 1981 under Section 9 of the Opium Act was registered against the petitioner at police station Saddar Amritsar. He was tried and convicted under Section 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/. In default of payment of fine, he was to suffer further RI for three months. The said judgment dated 10.2.1996 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, was challenged, which was upheld by this Court vide order dated 10.4.1997 in Criminal Revision No. 669 of 1986.

The petitioner was also tried subsequently for the offence punishable under Section 9 of the Opium Act in case FIR No. (sic) of 1982 and convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 1 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 700/ in default of payment of which he was ordered to further undergo RI for three months by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, vide his judgment dated 19.9.1986. The conviction was challenged before this Court in Criminal Revision No. 403 of 1987 and was upheld vide judgment dated 5.3.1997, rendered by this Court.

The ground on which the petitioner seeks order under Section 427 Cr.P.C. for the aforesaid two sentences to run concurrently is that there was an inordinate delay in trial. The offences were committed 1516 years prior to the conviction upheld in revision. Apart from it, it has been contended that the wife of the petitioner is an aged woman and having numerous health problems. A certificate of the attending doctor has been placed on record as Annexure P.3. The petitioner''s wife was suffering from acute degree of diabetes and her left leg has to be amputated. An affidavit in this regard has been filed as Annexure P4. It was further alleged that the petitioner''s undergoing sentence in earlier case was not brought to the notice of the court while subsequent sentence was passed and as such, the court could not pass any orders regarding the two sentences to run concurrently.

Notice of motion was issued to the respondent.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned DAG for the State of Punjab/respondent. I have gone through the averments made in the petition.

Section 427 subsection (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down as under

"427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence. (1) 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 ha''s been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence :

Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under Section 122 in default of furnishing security is whilst undergoing such sentence sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately."

It will appear from the perusal of the aforesaid section that in the first instance normally the sentences in the two cases are to run consecutively and not concurrently unless the court directs the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with such previous sentence. The petitioner was tried for an offence punishable under Section 9 of the Opium Act. He was convicted and awarded the sentence of undergoing RI for 1 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ in default of payment of which he was to suffer further RI for three months. In the subsequent case, he was ordered to undergo RI for 1 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ in default of payment of which he was directed to suffer further RI for three months. The revisions aforesaid, filed by the petitioner came up for hearing before this Court and the same were decided by separate judgments. The petitioner did not bring it to the notice of this Court his prayer for the sentence in the subsequent case to run concurrently with the sentence of the previous case. It is after the decision of the revisions that he has now moved this miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking this relief of the two sentences to run concurrently.

After carefully considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there are no extraordinary circumstances and valid reasons in the instant case for ordering the sentences to run concurrently. No effort was made to seek this relief before the trial Court as also before the revisional court. The grounds of delay and the illness of the wife of the petitioner are, in my considered view, not good and relevant for ordering the two sentences to run concurrently and particularly keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was found guilty of possessing opium unauthorisedly on two occasions, for which he was tried and convicted.

Resultantly, this petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.