Criminal Misc. No. M-15971 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No. M-15971 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision:03.07.2008 Balwant Singh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL **** RAJESH BINDAL J. This application presented to Hon'ble Inspecting Judge during the course of visit to Jalandhar Jail on 10.4.2008 was treated as petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The prayer in the application is for a direction to run the sentences awarded to the petitioner concurrently. As per the facts stated in the application, the petitioner was to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years in FIR No.216 dated 2.7.1997 for an offence under Sections 397/411 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. In another FIR No.103 dated 2.7.1997, the petitioner was convicted to undergo life imprisonment for offence committed under Sections 302/201/34 IPC. The issue as to whether this Court in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C can direct the sentences to run concurrently when the same have been awarded in different trials has been considered authoritatively by a Full Bench of this Court in Jang Singh v. State of Punjab, 2008(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 323 after considering Mehal Singh v. State of Haryana, 1987(2) Recent Criminal Reports 240 and Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, 1986(2) Recent Criminal Reports 566. The relevant paras from Full Bench judgment in Jang Singh's case (supra) are extracted below:- “18. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-15971 of 2008 (O&M) -2- 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. However,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. What principle and consideration will govern the exercise of this discretion, as already noted above cannot be exhaustively enumerated. Certain relevant factors, as can be culled out from Criminal Misc. No. M-15971 of 2008 (O&M) -3- different judgments referred to above, may give an indication where such discretion may be exercised. These factors generally would be the nature or character of the offences committed, the prior criminal record of the offender, character his age and sex etc. ghastly nature of the crime. The offender being habitual would also be the factor, which can be relevantly taken into consideration. It may be stated at the cost of repetition that these are not the only reasons for which the Court can exercise this discretion. Discretion always is open to be exercised by any Court dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case on any relevant or valid consideration as may be considered so by the Court while holding the trial or deciding the case at the stage of appeal or revision. It may require a notice that Section 427 Cr.P.C as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court is aimed at amelioration and this aspect may also require to be kept in view while exercising the discretion.” Once issue has already been settled authoritatively by a Full Bench of this Court opining that discretion to direct sentences to run concurrently lies only with the trial Court, the Appellate Court or the revisional Court and no petition for the same is maintainable under Section 482 and 427 of the Code, no relief could possibly be granted to the petitioner in a petition filed under Sections 482 and 427 of the Code. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. July 03, 2008 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) renu JUDGE