Crl. Misc. No. M-19399 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-19399 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:- 02.06.2011 Parkash ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Kshitij Sharm, AAG, Haryana RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) This petition is being entertained on an application made by the petitioner to Hon'ble the Chief Justice for getting the sentences run concurrently awarded to him in the following cases:- 1. Case (FIR) No. 245/91 u/s 395/396/397 IPC, relating to Jagadhari. 2. Case (FIR) No. 316/91 u/s 392/393/397 IPC, relating to Jagadhari. 3. Case(FIR)No. 119/2000 u/s 457/380/342/411 IPC, relating to Jalandhar. The convict has almost undergone 15 years of sentence. He was awarded imprisonment of 1 years, 10 years by the Additional Sessions Judge,Jagadhari in the above mentioned two cases and imprisonment for 2 years by the District Judge Jalandhar in the third above mentioned case. On notice, a reply has been filed by Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal in which the details about the sentences awarded to the convict has been given, which reads as under:- 1. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1200/- in default of payment of fine shall further undergo R.I. for a period of one year in case (FIR) No. 245 dated 10.08.1991 u/s 395/396/397 IPC, Police Station, Jagadhari by the ld. Court of Sh B.L. Singal, Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari on 24.02.1996. The details of other convicted cases is as under. Crl. Misc. No. M-19399 of 2009 (O&M) -2- 2. The petitioner was also convicted and sentenced to undergo ten years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 600/- in default of payment of fine shall further undergo R.I. for a period of nine months in case (FIR) No. 316 dated 20.07.1991 u/s 458/395/397 IPC, Police Station City, Yamunanagar by the ld. Court of Sh B.L. Singhal, Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari on 24.02.1996. 3. The petitioner was also convicted and sentenced to undergo two years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 600/- in default of payment of fine shall further undergo S.I. for a period of 12 days in case (FIR) No. 119 dated 20.10.2000 u/s 457/380/342/411 IPC, Police Station , Kartarpur, District Jalandhar (Punjab) by the ld. Court of Sh Tejinderbir Singh, PCS, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class on 06.11.2006. As per the reply, the petitioner has undergone total 17 years 11 months and 19 days (17 years 11 months 18 days actual sentence period + 02 years 10 months 13 days Remissions-00 year 01 month 12 days availed Parole + 02 years 09 months 0 days overstay) of imprisonment as per Annexure R-1. Vide order dated 12.02.2009, the premature release of the petitioner was sent to the Director General of Prisons, Haryana, Panchkula for further submissions to State Level Committee which has already been placed before State Level Committee on 21.05.2009. The State level Committee on 01.07.2009 has observed that this life convict has undergone following sentence as on 28.08.2009 Y M D Actual Sentence 14 08 06 Total Sentence 17 05 07 The State Government has filed SLP's in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar case and Apex Court has stayed the operation of the direction/orders of the High Court. SLP is being filed in this case also. Therefore, State Level Committee recommends to differ the premature release case of this life convict Crl. Misc. No. M-19399 of 2009 (O&M) -3- to await the decision of the SLP. Now the question which arises for determination is whether these sentences should run exclusively or concurrently. For that Section 427 reads as under:- “427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence. (1)When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence: Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately. (2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence”. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ranjit Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and another, 1991(4) SCC 304 made a detailed reference to sub sections (1) and (2) of Section 427 Cr.P.C held as under: “Sub-section (1) of Section 427Cr. P.C. provides for the situation when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or life imprisonment. In other words, Sub- section (1) of Section 427 Cr. P.C. deals with an offender who while undergoing sentence for a fixed term is subsequently convicted to imprisonment for a fixed term or for life. In such a situation, the first sentence, being for a fixed term, expires on a definite date which is known when the subsequent conviction is made., Sub- section (1) says that in' such a situation, the date of expiry of the first sentence which the offender is undergoing being known, Crl. Misc. No. M-19399 of 2009 (O&M) -4- ordinarily the subsequent sentence would commence at the expiration of the first term of imprisonment unless the Court. directs the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence. Obviously, in cases' covered by Sub-section (1) where the sentence is for a fixed' term, the subsequent sentence Can be consecutive unless directed to run concurrently. Sub- section (2), on the other hand, provides for an offender already undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life" who is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or for life. It is well-settled since the decision of this Court in Gopal Vinayaka Godse and reiterated in Maru Ram that imprisonment for life is a sentence for the remainder or the life of the offender unless the remaining sentence is commuted or remitted by the appropriate authority. This being so at the stage of sentencing by the Court On a subsequent conviction, the earlier sentence of imprisonment for life must be understood in this manner and, therefore, there can be no question of a subsequent sentence of imprisonment for a term or for life running consecutively which is the general rule laid down in Sub-. section (1) of Section 427. As rightly contended' by Shri Garg, and not disputed by Shri Lalit, the earlier sentence of imprisonment for life being understood to mean as sentence to serve the remainder of life in prison unless commuted or remitted by the appropriate authority and a person having only one life' span, the sentence on a subsequent conviction of imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life can only be superimposed to the earlier life sentence and certainly not added to it since extending the life span of the offender or for that 'matter anyone is beyond human might. It is this obvious situation which is stated in sub- section (2) of Section 427 since the general' rule enunciated in sub-section (1) thereof is that without the Court's direction the subse-. quent sentence will. Not run concurrently, but consecutively. The only situation in which no direction of the Court is needed to make the subsequent sentence run concurrently with the previous sentence is 750 provided for in Sub-section (2) which has been enacted to avoid any possible controversy based on Sub- section. (1) if there be no express direction of the Court to that effect. Sub-section (2) is in the nature of an exception to the general rule enacted in Sub-section (1) of Section 427 that a Crl. Misc. No. M-19399 of 2009 (O&M) -5- sentence on subsequent conviction commences on expiry of the first sentence unless the Court directs it to run concurrently. The meaning and purpose of Sub-sections (1) &(2)of Section 427 and the object of enacting Sub-section(2)is, therefore, clear”. Applying the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court while interpreting Section 427 sub clause (i) and (ii), benefit can be given to the petitioner in the present case who has been convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment and subsequently convicted and sentenced for various terms of imprisonment as above. Since no appeal is filed, this Court can entertain petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and with the aid of Section 427(2) Cr.P.C that the sentences shall run concurrently. An affidavit has been filed by Superintendent of Police, Yamunanagar in which it has been mentioned that as per the official record of police station city, Jagadhari, no petition has been received from the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh pertaining to appeal in connection with FIR No. 245 dated 10.08.1991 u/s 395/396/397/460 IPC, Police Station City Jagadhari. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, a direction is given by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 and 427 (2) of Cr.P.C that the sentences awarded to the petitioner shall run concurrently. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. June 02, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora JUDGE