Criminal Misc. No. M-5194 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-5194 of 2010 Date of Decision: 26.02.2010 Pawan Kumar son of Ram Rattan, r/o Shergarh, Tehsil Dabwali. ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Haryana. 2. The Superintendent, District Jail, Sirsa. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Gourave Bhayyia, Advocate, for the petitioner. SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., read with Section 427 Cr.P.C., seeking directions to respondent No. 2, to include the period of sentence, undergone by the petitioner, in FIR No. 330, dated 30.11.94, under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Physchotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be called as the 'Act' only), P.S. City Dabwali, in which, he was acquitted, by this Court, vide order dated 31.03.98, as also the sentence, undergone by him, in FIR No. 71, dated 11.03.94, under Sections 15 and 16 of the Act, P.S. City Dabwali, has been filed by the petitioner. Criminal Misc. No. M-5194 of 2010 2 2. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioner, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 3. The Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner, namely Pawan Kumar, was implicated, in two separate cases, in and around the same time, in FIR No. 71 dated 11.03.94, under Sections 15 and 16 of the Act, P.S. City Dabwali, and FIR No. 330, dated 30.11.94, under Section 18 of the Act, P.S. City Dabwali. He further submitted that the petitioner, was convicted, vide order dated 14.09.96, by the Court of Sessions Judge, Sirsa, in FIR No. 330. He further submitted that the petitioner, preferred an appeal bearing No. 665-SB of 1996 before this Court, but, and vide order dated 31.03.98, he was acquitted. He further submitted that, in another FIR No. 71 dated 09.03.98, under Section 18 of the Act, the petitioner, was convicted, on 09.03.98, by the Court of Sessions Judge, Sirsa. He further submitted that the petitioner, was granted regular bail, in the case, arising out of FIR No. 71, dated 11.03.94, but could not come out of the jail, due to the pendency of the criminal case, arising out of FIR No. 330, in which, he was ultimately acquitted. He further submitted that, however, in FIR No. 330, the petitioner, spent around 4 ½ years, in custody, and during that period, the proceedings of the case, arising out of FIR No. 71, were also pending, in the trial Court, but the custody period, was not included, in the case, arising out of FIR No. 330. He further submitted that, therefore, the time period of 4 ½ years, spent by the petitioner, inside the jail, was not counted anywhere. Accordingly, Criminal Misc. No. M-5194 of 2010 3 the prayer, referred to above was made. 4. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the petitioner, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. At the time of deciding the case, by the trial Court, no such prayer, was made, by the petitioner. The petitioner, was arrested, in two separate cases, referred to above, on different occasions, under the Act. In both the cases, he was convicted. In one case, his appeal was accepted. Since no direction, was given by the trial court, that sentence, in both the cases, should run concurrently, he was to undergo sentence, in the second case, after the conclusion of the same, in one case. The provisions of Section 427 Cr.P.C., dealing with the situation, are extracted as under:- “427. Sentence an 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 there a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under Section 122 in default of furnishing security sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately. Criminal Misc. No. M-5194 of 2010 4 (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.” 5. The provisions of Section 427 (2) Cr.P.C., are not applicable, to this case, as the petitioner, was not undergoing imprisonment for life, when he was convicted and sentenced, in the subsequent case. Section 427(1) Cr.P.C., clearly lays down, that 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. As stated above, no such, direction was given, by the trial Court. No doubt, in view of the principle of law, laid down, in Sher Singh Vs. State of M.P., 1989(1), RCR (Criminal), 696, relied upon, by the Counsel for the petitioner, this Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can direct the running of previous and subsequent sentence concurrently, even if the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence had become final, yet, in my considered opinion, it is not a fit case, in which, such a direction, should be given. The petitioner, committed the offences, punishable under Sections 15, 16 and under Section 18 of the Act, in two different cases for having been found in possession of poppy husk Criminal Misc. No. M-5194 of 2010 5 and opium respectively. The offences under the Act, are very heinous. The persons who deal, in the sale and purchase or smuggling of narcotics, not only cause enormous loss, to the economy of the Country, but also annihilate the generations. The youth of this Country, has fallen prey to drugs and other intoxicants. The petitioner committed very heinous offences. He is not entitled to the discretion of the Court, under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. 6. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M-5194 of 2010, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 26.02.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE