Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1104 (PNJ)

Satpal Chaudhary v. Kuldip Mahajan & another

2003-08-12

VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
ORDER Virender Singh, J. - The only prayer of the petitioner in the present petition is that the two sentences imposed on him vide two different judgments of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh dated 1.2.2002, Annexure P-1 and P-2, respectively be directed to run concurrently. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Mr. Bawa contends that the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo RI for six months in both the cases for allegedly committing an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and both the judgments are passed on the same day i.e. on 1.2.2002. He then contends that there after the petitioner filed two separate appeals against the said order and the same have been dismissed in January, 2003 vide two separate judgments Annexures P-3 and P-4 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. Thereafter, no revision has been filed by the petitioner against the conviction in this Court except the present petition for the relief that the two sentences should run concurrently. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contends that the present petitioner had also been convicted in another two cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the same Court on 19.5.2003 vide two separate judgments Annexure P-5 and P-6 but in the said two judgments, the learned Magistrate has ordered that the sentences in both the cases would run concurrently. 3. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988(1) RCR 114, Jamil Khan v. State of Haryana, 1995(1) RCR 595, Sukhdev Raj v. State of Punjab and others, 1996(1) RCR 108 and Criminal Misc. No. 1438-M of 2003 decided on 24.3.2003. 4. Mr. Gautam Dutt has no serious objection if both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 5. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in my view, cover the case of the petitioner squarely. 6. It is accordingly directed that the sentence imposed upon the petitioner vide judgment dated 1.2.2002, Annexure P-1 and P-2 shall run concurrently. Disposed of. Petition allowed.