Criminal Revision No.589 of 1993 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.7334 of 2008 with Criminal Revision No.589 of 1993 (O&M) Date of decision: February 19, 2008 Harnek Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. V.G. Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) By this common order, five revision petitions bearing No.589, 590, 591, 592 and 593 of 1993 are being decided. On February 06, 2008, I had passed the following order: “Mr. Dogra has stated that petitioner has undergone the entire period of his sentence. Mr.Dogra with all vehemence at his command, wanted this Court to disturb the findings of conviction. When confronted that two courts below have returned findings of fact, Mr.Dogra has stated that he will be unable to point out any illegality or irregularity in the conduct of the trial and judgment of courts below. I have perused the record. Both the courts below have returned findings of fact. I am unable to tread on the path of appreciation to re-evaluate the evidence as desired by Mr.Dogra. Mr.Dogra is in agreement with me that the scope of Revisional Court is very limited. Courts below have relied upon the documents and from the documents, had concluded that petitioner is guilty of the offences, for which he has been sentenced. Criminal Revision No.589 of 1993 (O&M) 2 Since as per Mr.Dogra, petitioner has already undergone the entire sentence in all the cases, no interference is called for and hence present revision petition is dismissed.” Before the same could be signed, Mr.Dogra made a request that even though in all five cases, it has been ordered that the sentences will run concurrent, but the courts below have over-looked to order that sentence awarded for three offences, i.e. under section 408/468/471 IPC shall also run concurrent. On the above request made, Mr.Dogra was asked to file application. Accordingly, Criminal Misc. Applications have been filed in these revision petitions praying that substantive sentence awarded for three offences be also made to run concurrent. Mr.Dogra brought to my notice following observations of first appellate Court below: “18. Accordingly I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The conviction of appellant under Section 408/468/471 Indian Penal Code as well as the sentences awarded by the learned lower Court are hereby affirmed. 19. The other appeals filed by the appellant-Harnek Singh (Criminal appeals No. 4, 5, 6 and 8 of 1991) have also been dismissed vide my separate detailed judgment of even date. The accused-appellant is ordered to be taken into judicial custody forthwith and be sent to Central Jail, Ludhiana, where he shall undergo the sentences awarded by the learned lower Court. The substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded in this appeal shall run concurrently with the substantive sentences awarded to him in other four challans. Lower Court record be returned forthwith. The file be consigned to the record room.” It is clarified that the intention of the appellate Court below is apparent if in all five challans the sentences are made to run concurrent then the sentence awarded by the Court under Section 408/468/474 IPC Criminal Revision No.589 of 1993 (O&M) 3 and in each case of petitioner, who was awarded 1 ½ year sentence shall run concurrent qua each of the five challans. Hence, sentences will be made to run concurrent, he will not be taken into custody if the fine is paid and he has undergone substantive sentence of one and half year. With these observations, these five revision petitions are disposed off. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge February 19, 2008. rps