IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-21540 of 2009 Date of Decision:21 .9.2010 Surjit Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Ms. Monika Jalota, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The present petition under Section 427 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for direction that sentence of imprisonment awarded by the learned trial court vide its order dated 23.12.2008 (Annexure P-2) be ordered to run concurrently with the previous sentence awarded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide order dated 28.9.2006 (Annexure P-1). The facts are that FIR No.55 dated 17.4.2006 under Section 304/279 IPC, P.S. Nihal Singhwala was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner was convicted under Section 304 IPC and ordered to undergo RI for period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 2 months by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bathinda vide its order dated 28.9.2006. Another FIR No.60 dated 17.4.2006 under Section 379 of the IPC P.S. Rampura was also registered against the petitioner in which allegation was regarding theft of jeep, by which accident in FIR No.55 was alleged to take place. In this FIR, the petitioner pleaded guilty and was CRM M-21540 of 2009 -2- convicted. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, sentenced the petitioner to undergo RI for 2 years vide order dated 23.12.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in custody and is undergoing sentence of five years awarded by Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. In the subsequent FIR the alleged offence is theft of jeep which resulted into accident and ultimately conviction of petitioner under Section 304 IPC was passed vide order dated 28.9.2006. Accordingly, a direction be issued that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence under Section 427 Cr.P.C. as the previous sentence is for accident caused by negligent driving of jeep and subsequent sentence is for theft of same jeep. The prayer made by the petitioner is vehemently opposed. However, it is not disputed that the accused was convicted in two distinct and different offences in separate FIRs. Thus, the provision of Section 427 Cr.P.C. will not apply. In any case, provision of Section 427 Cr.P.C. was not invoked in trial Court. Admittedly, no appeal has been filed against the said sentences. The present petition under Section 427 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed before the High Court praying for concurrent running of sentences. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of M.R. Kudva v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2007(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and held that the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not an appropriate remedy in seeking direction that the sentences should be ordered to run concurrently for a conviction held in two separate FIRs and for a conviction given in two separate trial and also observed in para 10 as under: CRM M-21540 of 2009 -3- “However, in this case the provision of Section 427 of the Code was not invoked in the original cases or in the appeals. A separate application was filed before the High after the special leave petitions were dismissed. Such an application, in our opinion, was not maintainable. The High Court could not have exercised its inherent jurisdiction in a case of this nature as it had not exercised such jurisdiction while passing the judgments in appeal. Section 482 of the Code was, therefore, not an appropriate remedy having regard to the fact that neither the trial Judge, nor the High Court while passing the judgments of conviction and sentence indicated that the sentences passed against the appellant in both the cases shall run concurrently or Section 427 would be attracted. The said provision, therefore, could not be applied in a separate and independent proceeding by the High Court. The appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed.” The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jang Singh v. State of Punjab 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) held in para 18 as under: “The consensus of the judicial Opinion, as may emerge from different judgments passed by various High Court 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 CRM M-21540 of 2009 -4- 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. However, it the trial Court does not pass any such direction for making the sentences to run concurrently and appeal or revision against the 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 Section 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 not 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.” Admittedly, no appeal has been filed against the order of conviction. Thus, in view of the well settled proposition of law as stated CRM M-21540 of 2009 -5- above, the present petition under Section 427 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed being not maintainable. 21.9.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE