Crl. Misc. No. M-13054 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-13054 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 24-08-2011 Raj Kumar ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Sandeep Mann, Sr. DAG, Haryana MAHESH GROVER, J This Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot grant the prayer of the petitioner in view of the settled position of law as laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in case titled as Jang Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2008 (1) RCR (Crl.) 323., which is reproduced as under:- The consensus of the judicial opinion, as may emerge from different judgments passed by 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-13054 of 2010 (O&M) 2 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 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 Section 482 or 427 Cr.P.C. What principle and consideration will govern the exercise of this discretion, as already noted above, can not be exhaustively enumerated. Certain relevant factors, as can be culled out from different judgments referred to above, may give an indication where such discretion may be exercised. These factors generally would be the nature or character of the offences committed, the prior criminal record of the offender, character, Crl. Misc. No. M-13054 of 2010 (O&M) 3 his age and sex etc. ghastly nature of the crime. The offender being habitual would also be the factor, which can be relevantly taken into consideration. It may be stated at the cost of repetition that these are not the only reasons for which the Court can exercise this discretion. Discretion always is open to be exercised by any Court dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case on any relevant or valid consideration as may be considered so by the Court while holding the trial or deciding the case at the stage of appeal or revision. It may require a notice that Section 427 Cr.P.C., as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, is aimed at amelioration and this aspect may also require to be kept in view while exercising the discretion.” Similar view has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as M.R.Kudva Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported as 2007 (1) RCR (Crl.) 868, wherein it has been observed as under:- “10. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-13054 of 2010 (O&M) 4 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.” Hence, the sentence of the petitioner who has been convicted and sentenced as follows cannot be made concurrent in the exercise of powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C:- i) Case registered under Sections 376/366/363/506 IPC he was convicted to undergo RI for 10 years. ii)Case registered under Sections 376/511/506 IPC he was convicted to undergo RI for 12 years. Hence, dismissed. August 24, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge