Criminal Misc. No. M-2836 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-2836 of 2011 Date of decision: June 2, 2011 Babu Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. C.L. Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab. RITU BAHRI J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for directing the respondent that sentences awarded by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nabha vide order dated 22.12.2008 (Annexure P-9) be ordered to run concurrently with the previous sentences awarded to the petitioner by different Courts as mentioned below :- Date of judgme nt/orde r FIR No. & dated By the Court U/Sec. Conviction Fine, if any In default of payment of fine 13/12/0 8 107 dated 4.8.2005 JMIC, Barnala 457 IPC R.I. 1-½ years 1000/- Two months 411 IPC RI.. 1-½ years 1000/- Two months Criminal Misc. No. M-2836 of 2011 -2- Date of judgme nt/orde r FIR No. & dated By the Court U/Sec. Conviction Fine, if any In default of payment of fine 01/12/0 8 46 dated 21.5.2007 JMIC Barnala 411 IPC R.I. 2 years 1000/- Two months 01/11/0 8 119 dated 19.4.2004 JMIC, Patiala 411 IPC R.I. 1 year 500/- Ten days 20.9.20 08 84 dated 20.9.2006 SDJM Nabha 420 IPC R.I. 7 months 400/- Two months 09/08/0 8 373 dated 23.8.2006 CJM, Patiala 411 IPC R.I. 3 months - - 09/08/0 8 388 dated 15.12.2005 CJM Patiala 411 IPC R.I. 3 months - - 14.6.20 08 25 dated 29.1.2003 JMIIC Nabha 379 IPC R.I. 6 months - - 11/06/0 8 51 dated 7.5.2003 SDJM Nabha 411 R.I. 6 months The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced in nine different cases decided by the Courts below as mentioned above in the table. The petitioner is in custody since 2008 and approached this Court for giving suitable directions that the maximum sentence awarded out of the above mentioned nine cases is to be served out by the petitioner independently instead of serving out one after the another. The manner in which the power under Section 427 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised has been considered in Full Bench in Jang Singh v. State of Punjab 2008 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 323 as under:- “The consensus of the judicial opinion, as may emerge from different judgments passed by various High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Criminal Misc. No. M-2836 of 2011 -3- 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 of 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 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 Sections 482/427 Cr.P.C.” Criminal Misc. No. M-2836 of 2011 -4- The Supreme Court in M.R.Kudva v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2007 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 868 has observed 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 to the fact that neither the trial judge, nor the High Court 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 passing the judgment 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-2836 of 2011 -5- in a separate and independent proceeding by the High Court. The appeal being, devoid of any merit is dismissed.” In the present case, after the conviction orders were passed by the trial Court the appropriate remedy to seek the benefit of concurrent running of sentences in all the cases will be at the stage of revision or before the Appellate Court. As per the settled law the High Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to entertain an application under Section 427 Cr.P.C. and pass order for the sentence to run concurrently in two different trials. Criminal miscellaneous is dismissed. 2.6.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija/rupi JUDGE