Criminal Revision No.403 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.403 of 2011 Date of decision:- 29.4.2011 Varinder Singh @ Cheena ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Saurabh Kaushik, Advocate for Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab. RITU BAHRI J. The petitioner has been facing trial in two different FIRs, first FIR No.186 dated 2.10.2008 under Section 382 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib and second; FIR No.29 dated 05.3.2009 under Sections 382,411,34 IPC and Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. Vide judgment dated 4.10.2010 in view of the confession made by accused Varinder Singh regarding his guilt, he was held guilty and sentenced to undergo imprisonment in both the FIRs as under:- Criminal Revision No.403 of 2011 -2- In FIR No.186 dated 02.10.2008 Name of convict U/Sec Sentenced to undergo Fine, if any Varinder Singh 326 IPC R.I. for a period of two years Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to undergo further R.I. For a period of one month. 382/511 IPC R.I. for a period of one year Nil 25/54/59 of Arms Act R.I. for a period of one year Nil In FIR No.29 dated 05.3.2009 Name of convict U/Sec Sentenced to undergo Fine, if any Varinder Singh 382 IPC R.I. for a period of two years Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to undergo further R.I. For a period of one month. 411 IPC R.I. for a period of one year Nil 25/54/59 of Arms Act R.I. for a period of one year Nil Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the judgment dated 4.10.2010 has not been challenged by the petitioner in appeal as he has admitted his guilt. The only argument raised by counsel for the petitioner is that he should be extended the benefit of Section 427 Cr.P.C. so that the sentences shall concurrently. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully. A Full Bench of this Court in Jang Singh versus State of Punjab 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 323 had an occasion to examine the powers to be exercised by this Court under Section 482/427 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Revision No.403 of 2011 -3- detail and has observed as under:- “If the trial Court does not pass any such direction for making the sentences to run concurrently and appeal or revision against said decision is also decided, then it may not be open for a person to seek such direction for making the sentences to run concurrently by moving an application under Sections 482/427 Cr.P.C. The view taken by one set of the High Courts that such an application can be entertained while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would no more appear to be a good law in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.R. Kudva case (supra). We are, thus, bound to take this view that this discretion though available with the trial Court, appellate Court or the revisional Court while holding trial or entertaining appeal or revision but would not be so available to be exercised in isolation when application in this regard is moved either under Sections 482 or 427 Cr.P.C.” In the present case, while facing trial the petitioner has admitted his guilt and has come up in revision against the judgment dated 4.10.2010 whereby the trial Court has not passed an appropriate order that both the sentences should run concurrently. The Full Bench judgment in Jang Singh's case (supra) has laid down certain guidelines whereby powers under Section 427 Cr.P.C. can be exercised with a judicial discretion to direct that the sentence will run concurrently. This power has not to be exercised on impulses, whims or unregulated benevolence. The crux of the aforesaid judgment is that the discretion to be exercised while exercising the powers under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. should not be arbitrary. It should be judicious and reasoned one. As per the settled Criminal Revision No.403 of 2011 -4- principles of criminal jurisprudence, sentencing policy with reference to the facts and circumstances of a given case where the previous and the subsequent sentences of imprisonment awarded to the accused are in two or more cases for distinct and separate offences arisen out of different transactions, incidents and even under different enactments the sentences could be made concurrent. In the present case, the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (as mentioned above) vide judgment dated 04.10.2010 in two different FIRs. He has admitted his guilt and was taken into custody after the judgment and he has spent almost 9 months and one day in custody. If the benefit as contemplated under Section 427 Cr.P.C. is not extended to the petitioner then he will have to undergo 4 years of rigorous imprisonment to comply with the judgment dated 4.10.2010. The Supreme Court in M.R. Kudva versus State of Andhra Pradesh 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 868 has taken a view that where the powers of Section 427 Cr.P.C. are never invoked and the appeals to High Court and SLP are dismissed, an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and 427 Cr.P.C. praying for imposing the sentences concurrently is not maintainable. In this case the appellants were convicted in four different cases and they claimed the benefit of Section 427 Cr.P.C. in order to avoid undergoing imprisonment of total period of 25-30 years in jail. The Supreme Court took the view that 14 years of rigorous imprisonment would meet the justice. In the present case no appeal has been filed by the accused Criminal Revision No.403 of 2011 -5- and the present application under Section 427 Cr.P.C. has been filed to get the benefit of running the sentence concurrently. A Full Bench of Bombay High Court in Satnam Singh Puransing Gill versus State of Maharashtra 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 703, there is no bar to make the sentence concurrent when a person is already undergoing sentence of imprisonment and is convicted and sentenced subsequently. It was further observed that the High Court has the power to order the sentences to run concurrently in an appropriate case when the facts and circumstances so permit. The Full Bench judgment of this Court in Jang Singh's case (supra) while extending the benefit to the convicts by making the sentences to run concurrently, made the following observations ;_ “The consensus of the judicial opinion, as may emerge from different judgments passed by various High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, seems to be that normal rule, as per Section 427 Cr.P.C., is that, a person who is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment and is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to an imprisonment or an imprisonment for life, then such imprisonment or imprisonment of life shall commence after the expiration of the imprisonment, to which he has been previously sentenced. This, however, would not be so if the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. Such direction to make the sentences to run concurrently, as per various decisions noted above, can be exercised by the trial Court or by the appellate Court or a revisional Court at the time of exercising appellate or revisional jurisdiction as well.” In the present case the petitioner has admitted his guilt. No Criminal Revision No.403 of 2011 -6- recoveries are to be made from the petitioner. This Court is of the view that this is an appropriate case in which the benefit of concurrent running of sentence should be ordered. There are no allegations in the FIR that the petitioner is habitual offender while admitting the guilt he has prayed for lenient view on the quantum of sentence. He submitted that he is poor person and is only bread earner of his family. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court with the aid of Section 427(1) Cr.P.C, it is a fit case where the relief should be granted. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons the present petition is allowed by giving direction that the sentence awarded in FIR No.186 dated 2.10.2008 under Section 382 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib and second; FIR No.29 dated 05.3.2009 under Sections 382,411,34 IPC and Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib as above would run concurrently. Copy of this order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala for compliance. April 29, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE