1 Cri.Revn. Appln.No.29/2010 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.29 OF 2010 Mohmad Azar @ Sarangali @ Azad Mohmad Rafiq Khan Age 40 years, Occ: T.V.Mechanic, R/o. Galli No.4, Mujahid Colony, Sadikabad, Dist.Rahimyarkhan, Punjab, Pakistan At present: Central Jail No.3, Tihar New Delhi ...Applicant. (Org. Accused) v. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. Ms Gazala R. Shaikh, adv. For the Applicant. Ms. S.V.Gajare, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : AUGUST 6, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 2 Cri.Revn. Appln.No.29/2010 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP. 2 By this revision application, the applicant only seeks direction that the sentence awarded by the trial Court for different offences during the same trial shall run concurrently and not consecutively. 3 Prosecution case, in brief is that the applicant is a Pakistani National. He entered into India in the year 2003 on a forged and fake Bangladesh Passport in a fake name. Having entered into India, he visited Kolkata, Ajmer and ultimately, he settled in Mumbai. With the help of certain persons he obtained forged School Leaving Certificate, purporting to have been issued from Katangal Lodhipur, Akbar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. On the basis of that he obtained motor driving licence. He also worked as a T.V.Mechanic in a repairing shop at Colaba. He opened bank account, secured ration card and subsequently, he also obtained Indian Passport on the basis of forged documents. He came to be arrested on 16.1.2005 and F.I.R. 70 of 2005 was registered at Colaba Police Station. Case was transferred to crime branch and crime no.37/05 was 3 Cri.Revn. Appln.No.29/2010 registered. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 468, 420, 427 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., and under Section 12(1) (b) of the Passport Act. 4 He pleaded guilty to all the charges and only prayed leniency on the ground that he had already spent five years in jail that he was participating in rehabilitation programme in Delhi and he had also worked as electronic technician in the jail. The learned trial Court on the basis of plea of the accused convicted him for all the offences and awarded S.I. For five years for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the I.P.C., S.I. For four years, for the offences punishable under Section 468 of the I.P.C., S.I. For three years for the offences punishable under Section 471 of the I.P.C., and S.I. For two years under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directed that all the sentences shall run separately. As a result of this direction, applicant will be required to undergo total imprisonment of 14 years. 5 Section 31(1) of the Cr.P.C. provides that when a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the Court may, subject to the provisions of section 71 of the Indian Penal Code, sentence him for such offences to the several punishments prescribed therefor which such Court is competent to inflict. Such punishments, when consisting of imprisonment, shall commence one after the expiration of the other in such order as the Court may direct, unless the Court directs that such 4 Cri.Revn. Appln.No.29/2010 punishments shall run concurrently. Therefore, if there is no direction by the Court that such punishment shall run concurrently they have to run consecutively on the expiration of one after another. However, it is settled position that normally sentence awarded for different offences during a single trial should be directed to run concurrently. In State of Maharashtra and another v. Najakat alias Mubarak Ali 2001 Cri.L.J.2588, the Supreme Court observed thus in paragraph 17 reiterating this settled practice: “ In the above context it is apposite to point out that very often it happens when an accused is convicted in one case under different counts of offences and sentenced to different terms of imprisonment under each such count, all such sentences are directed to run concurrently. The idea behind it is that the imprisonment to be suffered by him for one count of offence will, in fact and in effect be imprisonment for other count as well.” 5 Cri.Revn. Appln.No.29/2010 6 In the present case, accused had pleaded guilty and on the basis of plea he was convicted and sentenced, he had prayed for leniency. Of course in view of the nature of the offence, no leniency could have been shown to him but at the same time, it was expected from the learned trial Court to give some valid reasons as to why the sentence awarded for different offences during the same trial were required to run consecutively and not concurrently. Taking into consideration the nature of offences, the learned Magistrate had granted maximum sentence of five years for the offence punishable under Section 420 while the sentence of imprisonment for other three offences was lesser. After going through the impugned order, I do not find any valid reasons to direct all the sentences to run consecutively. Therefore, in my considered opinion, in the interest of justice, sentence should be directed to run concurrently. 7 For the aforesaid reasons, revision application is allowed and all the sentences for different offences awarded by the Criminal Case No.927/PW/2009 shall run concurrently. 8 It appears that accused is in custody for more than five years and in view of this order, he may be released immediately, therefore, jail 6 Cri.Revn. Appln.No.29/2010 authority shall inform the Crime Branch DCB, CID, Mumbai while releasing him from jail so that police may take appropriate steps for his deportation as per law. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)