Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 342 (PNJ)

Narinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab

2007-03-01

NIRMAL YADAV

body2007
ORDER Nirmal Yadav, J. - Petitioner-Narinderpal Singh by filing this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prays that the two sentences awarded to him viz. (i) imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and (ii) sentence of imprisonment for 10 years R.I. under Section 392/34 Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 32/21.8.98/94-FTC/7.3.2002 registered vide FIR No. 53 dated 19.4.1995, under Sections 302/382 Indian Penal Code Police Station Kotwali, Patiala, decided on 6.5.2002, be ordered to run concurrently. 2. Petitioner was convicted in the aforesaid case vide judgment dated 6.5.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Patiala. Vide a separate order of sentence dated 15.5.2002, he was awarded punishment of life imprisonment under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of fine further sentence of one year R.I. was imposed. In the same case, he was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentences awarded to the petitioner were not ordered to run concurrently. Petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 448-DB of 2002. The Division Bench of this Court maintained the conviction and sentences awarded to the petitioner. However, no order with regard to running of sentences concurrently was passed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced for any other term of imprisonment, the subsequent sentences shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. The petitioner along with other co-accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 394/34 Indian Penal Code. The sentence of 10 years imprisonment imposed on the petitioner would, therefore, converge into the sentence of life imprisonment imposed under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and would flow through one stream. 5. 1 lac and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 394/34 Indian Penal Code. The sentence of 10 years imprisonment imposed on the petitioner would, therefore, converge into the sentence of life imprisonment imposed under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and would flow through one stream. 5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, argued that the sentences awarded to the accused cannot run concurrently as it was not so ordered by the trial Court. Even in the appeal filed by the petitioner before this Court no order with regard to running of sentences concurrently was passed. Learned counsel pointed out that as per Section 427(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as the Code), when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced 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. Therefore, in the absence of a specific order by the Court, both the sentences are to run consecutively. He further argued that since both the offences are distinct and different, the subsequent sentence would normally, run consecutive to the first one. He, therefore, argued that petitioner cannot invoke the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code for this purpose. 6. Section 427 of the Code provides as under :- "427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence. - (1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced 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 there a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under Section 122 in default of furnishing security 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, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence." 7. On careful consideration of the rival submissions, I am of the view that there is no bar in invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code for passing suitable orders for making subsequent sentence(s) concurrent with the earlier sentence. This very issue came up for consideration of a Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Sher Singh v. State of M.P., 1989(1) Recent Criminal Reports 696 (FB), wherein a specific question was posed before the Full Bench as to whether the High Court can entertain application under Section 427 of the Code while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. After discussing the issue at length and referring to Supreme Court decision in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 PC 966, the Full Bench held that the High Court has the power in appropriate cases to entertain an application under Section 482 of the Code by invoking its inherent power at any time subsequent to the decision in a given case even if the trial Court or the appellate Court has failed to exercise its discretion. This view has further been reiterated by this Court in a case reported as Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996(3) RCR(Crl.) 741 (P&H) wherein it was held that the inherent powers of the High Court are not in any manner fettered by the provisions of Section 427(1) of the Code and it can be invoked at any state even if there is no such order passed under the above provisions by the trial Court or the appellate Court. It is also well settled that no limitation is prescribed for invoking the inherent powers to prevent abuse of process of law or to secure the ends of justice so warranted by the facts of the case. 8. In the present case, the petitioner has been awarded imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and has also been awarded sentence of 10 years under Section 392/34 Indian Penal Code. 8. In the present case, the petitioner has been awarded imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and has also been awarded sentence of 10 years under Section 392/34 Indian Penal Code. Since he has already been sentenced to imprisonment for life, nothing remains after imprisonment to life and, therefore, the other sentence awarded under Section 392/34 Indian Penal Code would converge into the first sentence of life imprisonment and thereafter it would flow through the same stream. This view is in consonance with the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 427 of the Code. Sub-section (2) of Section 427 of the Code provides 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 sentence of imprisonment for life. The provision of sub-section (2) of Section 427 of the Code is based on the principle that when an offender is already undergoing imprisonment for life, any subsequent sentence to be served during the life time of that offender, shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. 9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the two sentences awarded to the petitioner viz. (i) imprisonment for life under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code and (ii) sentence of imprisonment for 10 years R.I. under Section 392/34 are ordered to run concurrently. Petition allowed.