- IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 26 of 2011 Date of Decision 26th February,2011 __________________________________________________________ Dharam Dass and another ….Appellants. Versus State of H.P. ….Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________ For the Appellants: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy A.G. __________________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral) The appellants have challenged the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur whereby they have been convicted for offences under Section 304 Part II and Section 323 IPC. While sentencing them, the learned trial Court directed that the appellats should undergo four years rigorous imprisonment and fine of ` 10,000/- each under Section 304 Part II IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 323 IPC. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. 2 2. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the learned trial Court while sentencing the accused did not specify that the sentences were to run concurrently/conjectively. It was the duty of the learned trial Court to specify it in the judgment. This is the only point urged. 3. I have gone through the judgment and heard learned counsel for the parties. In these circumstances, since this is only point raised, I deem it fit and proper after looking the entire facts of the case that both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. In that eventuality, the appellants would be entitled to be released from prison in case they have served four years rigorous imprisonment and have deposited the fine, as directed. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that both the appellants were taken in custody on 6.2.2007 and till date they have served more than four years. He also submits that fine amount has been deposited with the Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Nahan. If that be so, a direction is issued that both the appellants be released from the custody forthwith in case they are not required in any other case. The Superintendent, Model Central Jail shall verify as to whether both the appellants have served out four years rigorous imprisonment or not. In case they served the sentence, they be released forthwith as directed. No other point is urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The appeal is therefore disposed of. Dasti copy on usual terms. February 26th, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge 3