Criminal Misc. No. M-21949 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No. M-21949 of 2009 Date of Decision:05.10.2009 Sukhwinder Singh .....Petitioner Vs. The State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mrs. Sarla Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Sukhwinder Singh under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years under Section 392/ 395 of IPC in case FIR No.122 dated 4.8.2003 Police Station Siwan, District Kaithal vide judgment dated 23.8.2007 (Annexure P.1). He has also been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years under Section 392 of IPC and further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years under Section 397 of IPC vide judgment dated 20.3.2009 (Annexure P.2) in case FIR No.137 dated 1.9.2003 under Sections 392/397/34 of IPC, Police Station Rode, Sirsa. The petitioner has already completed both the sentences passed in both these cases. If the sentences in both the cases are made concurrent, the petitioner can be released. Criminal Misc. No. M-21949 of 2009 -2- In reply, it has been mentioned that it has nowhere been directed by the learned trial Court that sentence awarded in both the cases shall run concurrently. That being so, this petition may be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the observations rendered by the Full Bench of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in re: Sher Singh v. State of M.P., 1989(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 696, the sentences in both the cases may be made to run concurrently. As against this, the learned State Counsel submitted that there being no such direction from the trial Court, such direction cannot be given. I have well considered the rival contentions. In case Sher Singh (supra), no order was passed by the learned lower Court regarding running of sentences concurrently. It was held that High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C can direct previous and subsequent sentence to run concurrently, even if conviction had become final. The inherent power of High Court is not in any way fettered by Section 427(1) of Cr.P.C. In view of these observations, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the sentences awarded to the petitioner in both the above-referred cases shall run concurrently. October 05, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE