Shiv Raj @ Shinaja vs State of Punjab

Pritpal Singh, J.

In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Shiv Raj alias Shinaja has prayed that the sentences awarded to him in three separate cases be ordered to run concurrently.

The learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide an order dated November 17, 1981 (Annexure P.1) convicted the petitioner under Section 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.

Subsequently, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, vide an order dated 4.6.1983 convicted the petitioner under Section 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced him to undergo one year''s rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appeal filed by the petitioner against this order was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, on December 7, 1983 (Annexure P.2).

The petitioner was also convicted under Section 61(1)(a) of the Excise Act and sentenced to undergo two months'' rigorous imprisonment by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, vide order October 7, 1983.

Although in the petition it is contended that sentences in all these three cases be ordered to run concurrently but it is now intimated by the learned petitioner''s Counsel that the sentence passed on October 7, 1983 in the Excise case has already been ordered to run concurrently with the order dated November 17, 1981 (Annexure P.1). The prayer now, therefore, is that sentences pertaining to Annexure P.1 and P.2 only be ordered to run concurrently.

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) : decided on May 17, 1985 , 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 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.

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 subsequently sentence of imprisonment passed against the petitioner by the learned 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 nothing to indicate that the conviction and sentence of the former case had been brought to the notice of the Court convicting him in the later case. In such circumstances the latter Court could not consider whether the sentences were to run concurrently in the two cases or consecutively.

In the light of Mehal Singh''s case (supra) it is directed that the subsequent sentence of imprisonment passed against the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana on 4.6.1983 later confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, on 7.12.1983 vide order (Annexure P.2) shall run concurrently with the previous sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, on 7.11.1981 (Annexure P.1). This petition stands disposed of in these terms.