Crl. Misc. No. M-12322 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-12322 of 2009 Date of decision: 15.7.2009 Ajmer Singh .. Petitioner v. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. S. S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition filed by the convict, who is confined in Central Jail, Ludhiana is for ordering substantive sentences awarded to the petitioner in different FIRs to run concurrently as against consecutively. Briefly, the facts as stated in the petition are that on 9.6.1995, the petitioner was involved in case FIR No. 67 registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (for short, `the Act') at Police Station, City Moga. The petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 years by learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot. The petitioner filed appeal before this Court, which was dismissed on 22.3.2005. Again, on 28.9.1997, the petitioner was involved in case FIR No. 37 registered under Section 18 of the Act at Police Station Badani Kalan. He was tried, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and 6 months with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years vide judgment dated 17.8.2001, passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Faridkot. The petitioner filed appeal before this Court, which was dismissed on 4.2.2003. It is further stated in the petition that the petitioner had engaged two different Advocates for arguing the appeals before this Court. He was under the impression that one appeal was pending which, on enquiry, revealed that the same was decided and therefore, prayer for making the sentences to run concurrently Crl. Misc. No. M-12322 of 2009 [2] could not be made in the said appeals. Presently, he had already undergone 10 years of sentence in total and in case all the sentences awarded to the petitioner are to run consecutively, he will have to undergo 24 years of sentence. Reliance has been placed upon Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(4) RCR 712. A Full Bench of this Court in Jang Singh v. State of Punjab, 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 323 after considering the judgments in Mehal Singh v. State of Haryana, 1987(2) RCR 240 and Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, 1986(2) RCR 566, while dealing with the issue of converting consecutive sentences to run concurrently opined as under: “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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-12322 of 2009 [3] will govern the exercise of this discretion, as already noted above cannot be exhaustively enumerated. Certain relevant factors, as can be culled out from 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 with the trial court, the Appellate Court or the revisional Court and no petition for the same is maintainable under Section 482 and 427 Cr.P.C., no relief could possibly be granted to the petitioner in a petition filed under Sections 482 and 427 Cr. P.C. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 15.7.2009 mk