Sukhdev Raj vs State of Punjab

Swatanter Kumar, J.

The limited question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the two different and distinct sentences of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner herein should be directed to run concurrently or they should run one after the other.

The petitioner was awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/ or in default of the payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months further in a case registered under F.I.R. No. 200, Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar under Section 5 of the T.A.D.A. Act and section 25 of the Arms Act, vide a judgment dated 7.1.1991 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Designate Court, Amritsar. This sentence was awarded to the petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge, Designated Court, Amritsar, in case No. 114 of 1990. The petitioner was still sentenced to another punishment under F.I.R. No. 122 of 1974 where he was awarded to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years in May, 1988.

Further a warrant was received in another case under section 9 of the Opium Act in which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and this was received by the Jail Authorities on 20.11.1993. There was no entry on the warrant that the punishment awarded to the petitioner would run concurrently with the punishment awarded to the petitioner under the T.A.D.A. Act.

In the reply of the respondents, though these facts have been confirmed but it is stated that the petitioner has to undergo sentence of eight years (total) and has to pay the awarded fine. According to the respondents, these sentences cannot be directed to run concurrently.

The counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment passed by Hon''ble Mr. Justice S.S. Grewal (as his Lordship then was) in Cr. W.No. 1217 of 1989 in the case of Rajinder Singh v. State of Haryana, where identical question was considered by the Court and while relying upon a number of other judgments, the Court finally directed that the sentences of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner in two cases should be directed to run concurrently. No judgment to the contrary has been brought to my notice. In these circumstances, it is directed that the sentence awarded to the petitioner under the two aforesaid cases is ordered to run concurrently and shall be so computed by the Jail Authorities.

With these directions, this petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costes.