Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM-M-26043-2012 (O&M) Date of Decision:- December 04 v. State of Punjab

awarded to the petitioner in the cases arising out of FIR NO. 19, dated 11.01.2003, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Malerkotla, District Sangrur; FIR No. 44, dated 13.02.2004, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Malerkotla, District Sangrur; and FIR No. 168, dated 23.08.2006, under CRM-M-26043-2012 (O&M) 2 Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Malerkotla, District, Sangrur, may run concurrently. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years vide judgment dated 26.04.2011 for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code in a case arising out of FIR No. 19 dated

11.01.2003, Police Station Malerkotla, District Sangrur; rigorous imprisonment for two years vide judgment dated

21.01.2012 in a case arising out of FIR No. 44 dated

13.02.2004, Police Station Malerkotla, District Sangrur; and rigorous imprisonment for two years vide judgment dated

18.09.2007 in a case arising out of FIR No. 168 dated

23.08.2006, under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Malerkotla, District Sangrur. He further submitted that all the three cases were registered at Police Station Malerkotla,District Sangrur, and all the said cases were tried by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla. He further submitted that the petitioner was behind the bars from 05.02.2011 and would complete the sentence in a case arising out of FIR No. 19 dated 14.12.2012 and thereafter the sentence of the CRM-M-26043-2012 (O&M) 3 remaining two case will begin. He further submitted that this court has inherent powers to order that the sentences awarded to the petitioner in three different cases to run concurrently. The submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not tenable. In the case of M.R.Kudva Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, 2007 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 868, Hon'ble the Supreme Court held 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 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 CRM-M-26043-2012 (O&M) 4 Court. The appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed.” The Full Bench of this court in the matter of Jang Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2008(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 323, held 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 Criminal Procedure Code, 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 make the sentence 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 CRM-M-26043-2012 (O&M) 5 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 Criminal Procedure Code. The view taken by one set of the High Courts that such an application can be entertained while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code 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 Sections 482 or 427 Criminal Procedure Code. 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 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 CRM-M-26043-2012 (O&M) 6 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 Criminal Procedure Code 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.” In view of the findings arrived at in the above noted judgments, no ground for issuing direction by this court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is made out in the present petition. Dismissed. December 04 ,2012 Anoop (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE