Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 142 (PNJ)

Rajan Sharma @ Mithu v. State of Punjab

2014-01-17

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.:- Present order shall dispose of Criminal Misc.No.9529 of 2013 in Criminal Appeal-S No.419-SB of 2013 that has been filed under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for concurrent running of sentences. 2. Briefly noticed, the applicant was convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years, vide judgment dated 21.5.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, under Sections 307, 392, 397, 398 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant is in custody since 7.3.2006 and has since completed his sentence in the said case. Criminal Appeal bearing No. CRA-S-1364-SB of 2008 against the order of conviction is, however, pending. The applicant also stands convicted under Sections 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years, vide judgment dated 31.10.2011, passed by the Special Judge, Amritsar and against which also an appeal is pending in this Court. 3. The present application has been filed in an appeal preferred by the appellant in yet another conviction that he has suffered in case FIR No.31 dated 30.3.2008 under Sections 436/427 of the Indian Penal Code for 2-1/2 years, and for two years under Section 10 of the Damage to Public Property Act. 4. It has been prayed that the petitioner is continuously in custody since 7.3.2006 and the sentences awarded to the applicant in case (i) FIR No.102 dated 1.3.2006, under Sections 307, 392, 397, 398 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sadar Jalandhar; (ii) FIR No.29 dated 29.4.1997, under Sections 402, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar and the present case i.e. (iii) FIR No.31 dated 30.3.2008, under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 of the Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station Division No.2, Jalandhar be ordered to run concurrently. Further prayer is that the sentences awarded in the present case may be directed to even run concurrently. 5. In the reply submitted on behalf of the State, it stands conceded that the applicant has already undergone the sentence awarded to him in case FIR No.102 dated 1.3.2006, under Sections 392, 397, 398, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sadar Jalandhar. 5. In the reply submitted on behalf of the State, it stands conceded that the applicant has already undergone the sentence awarded to him in case FIR No.102 dated 1.3.2006, under Sections 392, 397, 398, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sadar Jalandhar. It has further been stated that the applicant is presently undergoing imprisonment in relation to sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment in case FIR No.29 dated 29.4.1997 registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau. 6. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length. 7. The normal rule under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for imposition of consecutive sentences. However, discretion has been given to the Sentencing Court to direct concurrent sentences. Such discretion to make the sentences to run consecutively or concurrently has to be governed by different considerations i.e. nature and character of the offences, criminal history sheet and record of the offender, age, sex etc. Reference in this regard may be made to the Full Bench decision of this Court in “Jang Singh v. State of Punjab”, [2007(4) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 3407] : 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 323. 8. The applicant is concededly a habitual offender. He has suffered three convictions in three separate cases. Normally, exercise of discretion as regards sentence to run concurrently in the case of a habitual offender would amount to hostile negative discrimination inasmuch as giving similar treatment to a normal as well as a habitual offender. Be that as it may, the applicant concededly has been in custody since 7.3.2006. Section 427(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the discretion vested therein is to provide amelioration to the prisoners. 9. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentences awarded to the applicant upon conviction in case FIR 29 dated 29.4.1997, under Sections 402, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar as also the present case i.e. in FIR No.31 dated 30.3.2008, under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 of the Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station Division No.2, Jalandhar, are ordered to run concurrently. It is, accordingly, so directed. It is, accordingly, so directed. It is further ordered that even in the present case, the sentence of 2-1/2 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code and two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 10 of the Damage to Public Property Act shall also run concurrently. 10. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid directions.