Crl. Misc. No. M-35450 of 2010 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-35450 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: June 2,2011 Ram Phal and others .............................. Petitioners Versus State of Haryana.................................... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. M.S.Cheema, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S.Virk, DAG, Haryana, for the respondent. ... RITU BAHRI, J. By this petition the petitioners are seeking benefit under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for ordering the sentences awarded simultaneously on the same date i.e. 7.2.2000 by the same judge to the petitioners in different F.I.R.s. The petitioners along with two others namely Satbir Singh and Som Nath were arrested for an offence of committing dacoity and possession of illegal weapons. An F.I.R. No. 24 dated 8.2.1995 under Sections 399/402 IPC was Crl. Misc. No. M-35450 of 2010 (O&M) [ 2 ] registered against all the six persons including the petitioners. Six different F.I.R.s No. 25 to 30 dated 9.2.1995 under Section 25 of the Arms Act for recovery of illegal weapons were also registered against the petitioners. The challans pertaining to all the F.I.R.s i.e. F.I.R. No. 24 registered under Sections 399/402 I.P.C. and F.I.R.s No. 25 to 30 registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act were presented simultaneously in the same Court. The petitioners were tried for the offences and were convicted by the Court of Shri S.C.Goyal, Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, on 7.2.2000. They were sentenced as under:- FIR details Sentenced u/s Quantum of sentence FIR No. 24 dated 8.2.1995 registered at Police Station, Indri 399 IPC 402 IPC RI for 5 years and fine of `500/- and in default for sentence of 1 years and 3 months. RI for 5 years and fine of `500/- and in default for sentence of 1 year and 3 months. FIR No. 27 dated 9.2.1995 registered at Police Station Indri 25 of Arms Act RI for one year and fine of `200/- and in default for sentence of 3 months. The learned Court did not order the sentences awarded under Sections 399/402 IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act to run concurrently. Copies of the judgments passed in F.I.R.s No. 24, 26, 27, 29 & 30 are attached with the petition as Annexures P-1 to P-5 respectively. Against these judgments passed in F.I.R. No. 24 and F.I.R.s No. 26, 27, 29 & 30, criminal appeals were filed in this Court in the year 2000 numbered as 195SB/2000, 200SB/2000, Crl. Misc. No. M-35450 of 2010 (O&M) [ 3 ] 196SB/2000, 197SB/2000 and 198SB/2000 respectively which were admitted and thereafter the learned Single Judge of this Court in F.I.R. No. 24 reduced the sentence of the petitioners from 5 years to 1 year for the offences under Sections 399/402 IPC. However, the sentence of 1 year awarded in F.I.R.s No. 26, 27, 29 & 30 against which the criminal appeals No. 196, 197, 198 and 200 SB of 2000 were filed by the petitioners was maintained. These appeals were decided by the Hon'ble Single Bench on 17.3.2010. Copies of the orders passed in the aforesaid criminal appeals are enclosed with the petition as Annexures P-6 and P-7. All the petitioners were on bail during the pendency of the criminal appeals against them. After disposing of the criminal appeals, all the petitioners surrendered themselves for undergoing the remaining sentence. The present petition has been filed on account of the fact that in F.I.R. No.24 dated 8.2.1995 under Section 399/402 IPC this Court had reduced the sentence from 5 years to 1 year and on completion of sentence of 1 year in October 2010 the petitioners were informed by the Jail Authorities that they had completed one year sentence in case F.I.R. No. 24 datd8.2.1995 registered under Sections 399/402 IPC and now the sentence of 1 year has started in F.I.R.s No. 26, 27, 29 & 30 dated 9.2.21995 under Section 25 of the Arms Act as there is no order of any Court that both Crl. Misc. No. M-35450 of 2010 (O&M) [ 4 ] the sentences will run concurrently. As per the Custody Certificates (Annexures P-7 to P-10) after completing the sentence of 1 year awarded in F.I.R. No. 24 dated 8.2.1995 registered under Section 399/402 IPC, sentence of 1 year will commence for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act on 18.10.2010. Satbir Singh co-accused, who was convicted along with the petitioners, has been released by the Jail Authorities on 18.10.2010 on the ground that there was only one warrant of custody certificate issued by the Court and he has completed the required sentence. Grievance of the petitioners is that he was also convicted and sentenced in both the F.I.R.s registered against him differently. In the reply, the facts narrated have not been disputed. The petitioners have undergone 5 month and 26 days in F.I.R. No. 27 dated 9.2.1995 under Section 25 of the Arms Act. There is no order of the trial Court, Appellate Court or the Revisional Court that the sentence awarded in the trial in F.I.R. No. 24 and F.I.R. No. 27 will run concurrently. Mr. M.S.Cheema, learned counsel for the petitioners, has referred to the judgments of the Full Bench in Sher Singh v. State of M.P. 1989 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 696 and Full Bench judgment of this Court in Jang Singh v. State of Punjab 2008(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 323 to contend that the High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to consider Crl. Misc. No. M-35450 of 2010 (O&M) [ 5 ] a petition under Section 427 Cr.P.C. Full Bench has laid down principles and consideration which will govern the exercise of this discretion. Mr. P.S.Virk, learned counsel for the State, on the other hand has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.R.Kudva v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2007 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 868, Satnam Singh Puransing Gill v. State of Maharashtra 2009 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 703 and Amar Singh v. State of Punjab and others 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 199 to contend that the remedy under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not appropriate having regard to the fact that neither the trial judge nor the High Court while passing the judgment of conviction and sentence indicated that the sentences passed against the accused in both the cases shall run concurrently. Section 427 Cr.P.C would not be attracted to proceedings initiated under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the petition. The manner in which the power under Section 427 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised has been considered in Full Bench in Jang Singh v. State of Punjab 2008 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 323 as under:- “The consensus of the judicial opinion, as may emerge from different judgments passed by Crl. Misc. No. M-35450 of 2010 (O&M) [ 6 ] 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 of 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.” Crl. Misc. No. M-35450 of 2010 (O&M) [ 7 ] The Supreme Court in M.R.Kudva v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2007 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 868 has observed as under:- “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 Court 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 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 judgment 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-35450 of 2010 (O&M) [ 8 ] High Court. The appeal being, devoid of any merit is dismissed.” The appeals against the conviction have been dismissed by this Court. As per the settled law the High Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to entertain an application under Section 427 Cr.P.C. and pass order for the sentence to run concurrently in two different trials. Criminal miscellaneous is dismissed. 2.6.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE