Crl. Misc. No.M-35017 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-35017 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 16, 2010 Balkar Singh …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Ms. Sarla Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Rana, DAG, Haryana. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment in a case FIR No. 113 dated November 11, 1984 under Section 420, 302/34, 394, 397 IPC registered at Police Station Chhappar, on February 27, 1986, by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala vide annexure P-1. While the petitioner was undergoing sentence of life imprisonment, he was again booked in a case FIR No. 210 dated April 9, 1988, under Sections 223, 224 IPC, Police Station Ambala City for having made an attempt to escape from Crl. Misc. No.M-35017 of 2009 [2] the custody of the police from the hospital. He was convicted for having committed offence under Sections 223, 224 IPC to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year. While passing the order of conviction on August 27, 1994, the Judicial Magistrate had ordered that the punishment awarded to the petitioner would be in addition to the punishment for which he was detailed in the custody at the time of commission of offence. The only prayer which has been made in this petition is that subsequent sentence should be ordered to run concurrent with the earlier sentence of life imprisonment as per provisions of Section 427 (2) Cr.P.C. Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has submitted that in view of the Government notification, the petitioner is entitled to premature release after having undergone sentence of imprisonment for more than eight and half years as substantive punishment and 14 years including the remissions and the case is being considered by the State of Haryana for the premature release of the petitioner. In view of the above background, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to order that the sentence of imprisonment in the subsequent case be ordered to run concurrently. I have considered the case of the petitioner in the light of Full Bench judgment of this Court in Jang Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2008 (1) RCR (Crl.) 323, where the law with regard go the concurrent running of sentences was summed up by the Full Bench. It was inter-alia observed in the said case that it is always discretionary for a Court at the time of conviction to make the sentences to run consecutively or concurrently Crl. Misc. No.M-35017 of 2009 [3] taking into consideration the different factors i.e. nature and character of the offence, criminal history sheet and record of the offender, his age and sex. The discretion to make the sentences to run concurrently 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. It is a settled principle of law that it is not open to a Court exercising discretion under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to issue directions for making sentences to run concurrently. In view of said circumstances, I am of the opinion that this petition for seeking the concession of running of sentence in two cases concurrently is not maintainable. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Jagdish, 2010 (2) RCR (Crl.) 465, laying down that the premature release of an accused will be governed by the instructions existing on the day of conviction, the petitioner has got a right to be released after taking into consideration the actual sentence undergone and the remissions granted. Even if the period of one year of sentence is added in the period already undergone, the petitioner will still be entitled to release. Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek premature release in accordance with the instructions and the law. August 16, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE