Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1151 (PNJ)

Brahmjit v. State of Punjab

2013-08-26

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2013
Judgment Jitendra Chauhan, J. This judgment shall dispose of both the above mentioned Criminal Revision. CRR No. 3953 of 2012, was filed against the judgment dated 1.11.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur, vide which the judgment and order dated 15.10.2010, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, convicting and sentencing the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month, was dismissed. CRR No.3978 of 2012, was filed against the judgment dated 1.11.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur, vide which the judgment and order dated 15.10.2010, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, convicting and sentencing the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month, was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner without assailing the findings returned by the learned trial Court on merits in both the cases, made a submission that the sentences awarded by the Trial Court in both the cases may be ordered to run concurrently. The learned State counsel did not oppose this submission. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. On delving into the prosecution evidence with sedulous care, it emanates that findings recorded by the courts below in both the cases are well in tune with the evidence on record and the same calls for no interference. Sequelly, the conviction of Brahmjit accused is upheld in both the revisions. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone almost whole of his sentence which includes remission. In both the cases, the sentences have been awarded by the Trial Court on the same day for similar offences. Sequelly, the conviction of Brahmjit accused is upheld in both the revisions. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone almost whole of his sentence which includes remission. In both the cases, the sentences have been awarded by the Trial Court on the same day for similar offences. In Jang Singh vs. State of Punjab 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 323, the Full Bench of this Court has 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 Cr.P.C., 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 sentences 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 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 Section 482/427 Cr.P.C. The view taken by one set of the High Courts that such an application can be entertained while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 Section 482 or 427 Cr.P.C. 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 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 Cr.P.C., 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.” Taking into consideration the entirety of facts and circumstances of the instant case, both the revision petitions are dismissed, but the sentences passed in Criminal complaint No.93 of 2006 decided on 15.10.2010 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, titled as “Satpal vs. Brahmjit” and Criminal complaint No.304 of 2006 decided on 15.10.2010, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur titled as “Balraj Singh Chauhan vs. Brahmjit” are ordered to run concurrently. The period already undergone will be set off against the sentence awarded. However, the fine imposed by the trial Court and its default clause are maintained in both the cases.