Criminal Misc.No. M- 35891 of 2009 v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The present petition stands allowed accordingly
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 427, 427(2), 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 302, 323
- Arms Act, 1959 s. 25
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present:- Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.M. Anand, Addl.A.G. Haryana. RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral) The prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for issuing direction to respondents that two sentences awarded to the petitioner i.e. in case arising out of FIR No.204 dated 23.5.1993, under Sections 302,323,34 IPC, registered at Police Station Narnaul (Annexure P-1) to undergo life imprisonment along with other sentences and in case arising out of FIR No.210 dated 28.5.1993, under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Narnaul (Annexure P-2) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, to run concurrently in view of Section 427(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. The facts are not disputed that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with other sentences in case FIR No.204 dated 23.5.1993, under Sections 302,323,34 IPC, registered at Police Station Narnaul and that he is undergoing life sentence in the said case as per reply filed by the State. Petitioner-accused was also sentenced in case FIR No.210 dated 28.5.1993, under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Narnaul on the same day to undergo imprisonment for six months. Though, it has been mentioned that all the sentences awarded for Criminal Misc. No. M- 35891 of 2009 -2- different offences in FIR No.204 dated 23.5.1993 would run concurrently by learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 01.10.1996. However, there is no order for concurrent running of sentence, passed in FIR No. 210 dated
Operative part
28.5.1993, under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Narnaul along with the said sentences. As per sub-Section (2) of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if a convict is undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life and if a sentence is imposed later on for another offence, the later sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the FIRs have arising out of the same occurrence as Chhura, regarding which sentence has been imposed in FIR No. 210 dated 28.5.1993, under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Narnaul, was used in the murder case. It is not disputed that transaction constituting the offences in both the cases is the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon a decision rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. No.2847-M of 2008 decided on 12.9.2008 in which in the similar circumstances, it was ordered that both the sentences awarded to the petitioner-accused would run concurrently. Hence, there is nothing as to why this Court should take a different view on the similar facts. Hence, it is ordered that both the sentences awarded to the petitioner-accused in FIR No.204 dated 23.5.1993, under Sections 302,323,34 IPC, registered at Police Station Narnaul and in FIR No. 210 dated 28.5.1993, under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Narnaul shall run concurrently. The present petition stands allowed accordingly. March 15, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The present petition stands allowed accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 427, 427(2), 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 302, 323; Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 15 Mar 2010. The bench was RAM CHAND GUPTA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.