Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 345 (UTT)

DHARAM SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2012-07-03

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This application is received on behalf of the convict Dharam Singh, from the jail. 2. Heard, and perused the application. 3. Admittedly, convict Dharam Singh, applicant has been convicted in five different cases by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi, in connection with Crime No. 395 of 2008, 396 of 2008, 397 of 2008, 398 of 2008 and 491 of 2008 Police Station-Patwari Chowki Badhan Gaon. All the cases were registered separately and appear to have been tried separately. Separate conviction is recorded, and sentences were also recorded separately. In all the five cases applicant Dharam Singh appears to have been convicted under Section 411 of I.P.C. only. In each case, he has been directed to undergo sentence of imprisonment for a period of three years, and further directed to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- 4. Section 427 of Cr.P.C. reads as under: “ Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence: (1) 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: Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under section 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 under going 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” 5. Scope of making the sentences concurrent is provided under Section 427 of Cr.P.C. However, Hon’ble Single Judge of Patna High Court in Baijnath Kurmi and another Vs. State, AIR 1961 Patna 138 has observed that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561A of Cr.P.C., 1898 (now Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973) are independent of powers under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., 1898 (now Section 427 of Cr.P.C., 1973). Similar view was taken by Hon’ble Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Mullapudi Venkanna Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 Andhra Pradesh 449. But the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Ramesh Krishna Sawant Vs. Similar view was taken by Hon’ble Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Mullapudi Venkanna Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 Andhra Pradesh 449. But the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Ramesh Krishna Sawant Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1995 CRLJ 1702 , has held that where three sentences in three different cases arisen out of different transactions are awarded, by separate judgments, sentences cannot be ordered to run concurrently. 6. Having gone through the relevant case law on the point and after considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that though the powers conferred on the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is independent of the powers to be exercised under Section 427 of Cr.P.C., by the trial court or appellate court, but the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., should not be exercised unless it is necessary for securing the ends of justice. It is pertinent to mention here that powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., can be exercised by the High Court only if: i) it is necessary so to do to give effect to any order passed under the code; ii) or to prevent the abuse of process of Court; iii) or to secure the ends of justice. In the opinion of this Court the present case does not fall in either of the three categories mentioned above. Therefore, the application moved by the applicant for making the sentences concurrent, awarded against him in five different cases, through different judgments, cannot be allowed. 7. Therefore, the application is dismissed. Registry is directed to inform the convict through Superintendent of the jail concerned.