IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M- 31814 of 2008 Date of decision: 31.3.2009 Naresh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent Present: Mr VK Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr AS Ghangas, DAG Haryana. *** S.S.SARON, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC – for short) read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for directing the respondent that the sentence of 6 months awarded to the petitioner under Sections 8/9 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act (Act- for short) be ordered to run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded on 12.11.1998 in view of the provisions of Section 427(2) CrPC. The petitioner was tried for the offences under Sections 148, 307, 302, 323, 325, 307 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 in case FIR 113 dated 31.5.1994 registered at PS Meham. The learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide judgment and order dated 12.11.1998 (Annexure P1) sentenced the petitioner for various terms of imprisonment including that of imprisonment for life. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. While undergoing life imprisonment, the Crl. Misc M-31814 of 2008 2 petitioner was involved in another FIR 297 dated 5.6.2000 registered under Sections 8/9 of the Act. Vide order dated 24.11.2000 (P2), the learned CJM found him guilty for the offence under Sections 8/9 of the Act and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the commission of the said offence. The said sentence it was ordered shall be in addition to the sentence of life imprisonment which the petitioner was already undergoing. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the provisions of Section 427(2) CrPC, the subsequent sentence of imprisonment for a term of 6 months is to run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment for life. Learned counsel for the State submits that in view of the ‘explanation’ to Section 9 of the Act, the punishment under the said Section is to be in addition to the punishment to a prisoner for the offence for which he was convicted. Therefore, the same is to run consecutively. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was awarded life imprisonment vide order dated 12.11.1998 (P1). The petitioner while undergoing his sentence of life imprisonment has been convicted under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act and he has been, vide order dated 24.11.2000 (P2), sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 6 months. The sentence of imprisonment for 6 months, it was held, is in addition to the sentence already imposed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact this Court vide order dated 11.12.2008 passed in Criminal Misc M-32628 of 2008, observed that the release of the petitioner had been delayed on account of dereliction on the part of the competent authority and for no fault of the petitioner. It was, therefore, ordered that the petitioner Crl. Misc M-31814 of 2008 3 would be released forthwith as an interim measure. The release, it was ordered, shall be subject to his furnishing adequate surety, etc. undertaking the return to the law subject to ultimate decision in the matter. It is submitted that the petitioner furnished necessary bail bonds in terms of the order dated 11.12.2008 passed by this Court and on 2.1.2009 his term came to an end. However, he has not been released in view of his subsequent conviction on 24.11.2000 (P2) for the offences under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. Section 427(2) CrPC reads as under:- “427(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”. A perusal of the above shows that 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 conviction. This Court in Ram Chander v. The Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab 1995(3) RCR (Criminal) 228 considered the ‘explanation’ given below Section 9 of the Act. It is envisaged in the ‘explanation’ that the punishment in this Section is in addition to the punishment to the prisoner for the offence for which he was convicted. It was observed by this Court that this was not in conflict with the mandate of Section 427(2) of the CrPC. As per Section 427(2) CrPC, in case of a life prisoner, any subsequent sentence is to run concurrently with the earlier sentence. In Jang Singh v. State of Punjab 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 323 a Full Bench of this Court observed that as per Section 427 CrPC, a Crl. Misc M-31814 of 2008 4 person who is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction or an imprisonment for a life in another case, then such subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. No separate order is required for concurrent running of sentence. However, a person who is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for a certain period and is sentenced to an imprisonment or an imprisonment for life, then such imprisonment or imprisonment for 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. Therefore, it is apparent that in the case of a person who is undergoing imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence awarded is to run concurrently with the imprisonment for life. The position, therefore, is that sentence in addition to the sentence already imposed, would be in respect of the sentence which is for a term other than life imprisonment. In other words, the sentence is for an imprisonment other than life imprisonment. The running of sentence in addition to the sentence of imprisonment would be inapplicable where a prisoner has been sentenced to life imprisonment. Therefore, the action of the authorities in considering the sentence of imprisonment in addition to the sentence that has been imposed, is contrary to the provisions of Section 427(2). In the circumstances, this petition is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence of imprisonment of 6 months as awarded vide order dated 24.11.2000 (P2) shall run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment for life earlier awarded to the petitioner. 31.3.2009 ( S. S. SARON ) ASR/amit Judge