Harbans Lal, J.@mdashThis petition has been moved by Baldev Singh u/s 482 of Cr.P.C.(for brevity the Code) seeking his premature release by making sentences to run concurrently u/s 427 of the Code.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months in Criminal Complaint No. 962/2/07 u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for brevity the Act) by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar on 8.7.2009. He was also convicted and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months in complaint case No. 659/2 of 2009 under Sections 138 of the Act by the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar on 31.7.2009.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that u/s 427(1) the sentences could be directed to run concurrently. Even otherwise as per the provisions of Section 427(1)(2) of the code subsequent conviction and sentence have to be run concurrently with the earlier sentence and conviction.
5. I have well considered these submissions.
6. Section 427 of the Code reads as under:
427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence:-(1) When a person already undergoing a sentence on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence:
Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order u/s 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately.
(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, subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.
7. In M.R. Kudva v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2007 (1) R Cri R (Cri) 868 separate trial of the accused was held in two different offences. The provisions of Section 427 of the Code were not invoked in the trial Court, nor in appellate Court. Thereafter an application u/s 482 and 427 of the Code was filed before the High Court for concurrent running of sentences. The Supreme Court held that Section 482 is not 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. In Jang Singh v. State of Punjab 2008 (1) R Cri R (Cri) 323 the Full Bench of this Court has held that "Discretion to make sentences to run consecutively or concurrently would be governed by different considerations, like facts of each case, nature and character of the offences, criminal history sheet and record of the offender, his age, sex. Each case is to be decided depending upon its facts. Nature and gravity of the offences would certainly be a relevant factor and so too the record of the offender including his age, sex. etc. 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. D irection to m ake 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 as well. It may not be open for a person to seek such direction for making the sentences to run concurrently by moving an application u/s 482 and 427 of Cr.P.C.".
8. On viewing the matter in the background of afore-quoted law, it comes out that the sentences awarded in both the cases cannot be made to run concurrently. Sequelly, this petition is dismissed.
9. Since the main petition has been decided, all pending Criminal Miscellaneous, if any, also stand disposed of.
