CRM M 37724 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- Date of decision: 24.02.2011 1. CRM M 37725 of 2010 Balraj Kumar ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent 2. CRM M 37724 of 2010 Balraj Kumar .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. K K Goel, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. Both the aforesaid petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the issue involved in these petitions is same. CRM M 37725 of 2010, complaint bearing No. 379 dated 12.11.1997 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was filed by CRM M 37724 of 2010 2 Gurnam Singh son of Ajit Singh, whereas, CRM M 37724 of 2010, complaint No. 378 dated 12.11.1997 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was filed by Daljit Singh son of S Gurdev Singh. It may be pointed out that in para 2 of CRM M 37724 of 2010, it has been wrongly mentioned that the aforesaid complaint was filed by Gurnam Singh. Actually, it pertains to the complaint filed by one Daljit Singh. Facts as narrated in CRM M 37724 of 2010, in short, are that one Daljit filed complaint No. 378 of 12.11.1997 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, alleging therein, that the petitioner in order to discharge his liability, issued cheque No. 995581 dated 17.07.1997amounting to Rs.2,04,000/- in his favour. Vide order dated 01.02.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon, the petitioner was sentenced and convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay Rs.5000/- as fine and in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal before the learned ASJ, Ludhiana against the order of conviction. The same was dismissed by the ASJ, Ludhiana, vide judgment and order dated 11.03.2010. After dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner filed criminal revision petition in this Court, which was also dismissed. In CRM M 37725 of 2010, one Gurnam Singh son of Ajit Singh filed complaint No. 379 of 12.11.1997 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, alleging therein, that the petitioner in order to discharge his liability, issued cheque No. 995580 dated 17.07.1997 amounting to Rs.2,04,000/- in his favour. Vide order dated 01.02.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon, the petitioner was sentenced and CRM M 37724 of 2010 3 convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay Rs.5000/- as fine and in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned ASJ, Ludhiana against the order of conviction. The same was dismissed by the ASJ, Ludhiana, vide judgment and order dated 11.03.2010. After dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner filed criminal revision petition in this Court, which was also dismissed. Vide both the aforesaid petitions, the petitioner prayed that a direction may be issued for running of the sentences concurrently, awarded to him in the aforesaid two different complaints. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Madan Lal reported as 2009 (2) RCR (Criminal) 602, to state that the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 IPC read with Section 427 IPC and direct the quantum of punishment awarded in two different complaints to run concurrently. There is absolutely no dispute with the proposition that direction to run the sentences concurrently can be ordered. However, the issue in dispute is whether such direction can be issued under Section 482 Cr.P.C read with Section 427 IPC. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jang Singh v. State of Punjab reported as 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 323, while dealing with the said question 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 CRM M 37724 of 2010 4 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 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 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.” Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of M.R. Kudva v. State of CRM M 37724 of 2010 5 Andhra Pradesh reported as 2007 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 868 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 trials and also observed in para 1a 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 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.” Thus, the issue of maintainability of the said petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with section 427 Cr.P.C for the relief claimed was not before the Hon'ble Supreme Court while rendering the judgment in the case of State of Punjab v. Madan Lal (supra). As such, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the same. CRM M 37724 of 2010 6 Reliance is also placed on the judgment rendered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Shafiq son of Jahur Ahemed v. State of M P and another reported as 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 95. The aforesaid judgment is rendered by the Single Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Even in that case, the issue of maintainability was not before the Court, whereas, this Court is bound by the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of our own High Court in the case of Jang Singh (supra). Moreover, in the present cases, two different complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act were filed by two different complainants i.e. Complaint No. 378 of 12.11.1997 was filed by Daljit Singh whereas, Complaint No. 379 of 12.11.1997 was filed by Gurnam Singh. Admittedly, against the order of conviction, appeals filed by the petitioner have been dismissed. The revision petitions have also been dismissed. Thus, in view of the well settled proposition of law as stated above, the present petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C read with Section 427Cr.P.C are dismissed being not maintainable. Photocopy of the order be placed on the connected file. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 24.02.2011 mohan