JUDGMENT : Manjive Shukla, J. 1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. 2. Name of Sri Satish Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 is printed in the cause list but he is not present before this Court. 3. It has also been informed that the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad has resolved to abstain from the Court work on 25.2.2025. 4. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the judgment and order dated 6.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad in Criminal Case No. 6669 of 2016 (State vs. Vikram Naiyyar @ A. Sharma @ Sanjeev Naiyyar @ Sanjeev Sharma & Ors.) whereby, the revisionist had been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. The trial court vide a separate order dated 6.10.2018 had awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment of seven years for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. the rigorous imprisonment of seven years for the offence punishable under Section 467 I.P.C.; the rigorous imprisonment of seven years for the offence punishable under Section 468 I.P.C. and the rigorous imprisonment of two years for the offence punishable under Section 471 I.P.C. The trial court vide its order dated 6.10.2018 had further provided that the sentence awarded to the revisionist under Sections 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. shall run together and after completion of the said sentence, the revisionist shall undergo the sentence awarded under Section 467 I.P.C. 5. The revisionist through this revision has also challenged the judgment and order dated 15.6.2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad whereby, the appeal filed by the revisionist bearing Criminal Appeal No. 163 of 2018 (Vikram Naiyyar @ A. Sharma @ Sanjeev Naiyyar @ Sanjeev Sharma vs State of U.P. & Anr.) had been dismissed and further the conviction and the sentence awarded by the trial court had been affirmed. 6. This criminal revision is pending before this Court since long. During pendency of this criminal revision, the revisionist had filed a Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 28 of 2025 (Vikram Naiyyar @ A Sharma @ Sanjeev Naiyyar @ Sanjeev Sharma Vs. 6. This criminal revision is pending before this Court since long. During pendency of this criminal revision, the revisionist had filed a Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 28 of 2025 (Vikram Naiyyar @ A Sharma @ Sanjeev Naiyyar @ Sanjeev Sharma Vs. State of U.P & Anr.) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the said writ petition Hon'ble Supreme Court had passed an order on 17.1.2025. The order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted as under :- "UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER Application for exemption from filing official translation is allowed. Issue notice, returnable on 28th February, 2025. In the meanwhile, it will be open for the petitioner to move the Roster Bench for consideration of application for grant of suspension of sentence and bail. The case of the petitioner is that there are two separate sentences of 7 years imprisonment and there is no direction to run the sentences concurrently. It is the case of the petitioner that he has undergone sentence for about 10 years. We are sure that the High Court will consider the aforesaid facts while dealing with the application made by the petitioner. Liberty is granted to serve the learned standing counsel for the respondent-State, in addition. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court at Allahabad." 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the revisionist has filed an application on 5.2.2025 whereby, the prayer for suspension of execution of the sentence awarded by the trial court has been made. 8. Since learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 is not present before this Court therefore, final hearing of this criminal revision is not possible as such, this Court proceeds to decide the application filed by the revisionist for suspension of the execution of the sentence awarded by the trial court. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has contended that the trial court had directed that the sentence awarded for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. shall run together and after completion of the said sentence, the revisionist shall undergo the sentence awarded under Section 467 I.P.C. 10. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has contended that the trial court had directed that the sentence awarded for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. shall run together and after completion of the said sentence, the revisionist shall undergo the sentence awarded under Section 467 I.P.C. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that Section 31 of the Cr.P.C. provides that the sentences awarded for the different offences in a trial would run simultaneously but looking into the gravity of the offence, the trial court can direct that the sentence awarded for different offences would run separately. 11. It has further been contended that the trial court, while directing that the sentences awarded under Sections 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. shall run together and thereafter the revisionist shall undergo the sentence awarded under Section 467 I.P.C., have assigned no reasons for that purpose and therefore, the trial court, while directing that the sentence awarded under Section 467 I.P.C. shall start after the completion of the sentence awarded to the revisionist for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C., had committed a manifest error. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has apprised the Court that if the sentences awarded for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and the sentence awarded for the offence punishable under Section 467 I.P.C. are implemented as per the directions issued by the trial court, the revisionist would have to remain under incarceration for a period of 14 years whereas, the total period of incarceration of the revisionist in connection to the case in question had already been about 10 years, therefore it is in the interest of justice that during the pendency of this criminal revision, this Court may directed for suspension of the execution of the sentence awarded by the trial court. 13. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State though has opposed the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel appearing for the revisionist but could not justify, as to how the trial court without giving reasons could have provided that the revisionist shall undergo the sentence awarded for the offence punishable under Section 467 I.P.C. after the completion of the sentence awarded under Sections 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. 14. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. 15. Section 31 of the Cr.P.C. is extracted as under :- "31. Sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial — (1) When a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the Court may, subject to the provisions of section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), sentence him for such offences, to the several punishments prescribed therefor which such Court is competent to inflict; such punishments when consisting of imprisonment to commence the one after the expiration of the other in such order as the Court may direct, unless the Court directs that such punishments shall run concurrently. (2) In the case of consecutive sentences, it shall not be necessary for the Court by reason only of the aggregate punishment for the several offences being in excess of the punishment which it is competent to inflict on conviction of a single offence, to send the offender for trial before a higher Court: Provided that— (a) in no case shall such person be sentenced to imprisonment for a longer period than fourteen years; (b) the aggregate punishment shall not exceed twice the amount of punishment which the Court is competent to inflict for a single offence. (3) For the purpose of appeal by a convicted person, the aggregate of the consecutive sentences passed against him under this section shall be deemed to be a single sentence." 16. From perusal of the Section 31 of the Cr.P.C., it is apparent that the trial court, while awarding sentence for difference offences in a trial, can direct that the sentences awarded for the different offences would run separately but for that, the trial court has to record reasons. 17. This Court is of the view that the trial court in its judgment and order dated 6.10.2018 has not recorded any reason for taking a view that the sentence awarded for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. shall run together and thereafter the sentence awarded for the offence punishable under Section 467 I.P.C. would start. 18. This Court is of the view that the trial court in its judgment and order dated 6.10.2018 has not recorded any reason for taking a view that the sentence awarded for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. shall run together and thereafter the sentence awarded for the offence punishable under Section 467 I.P.C. would start. 18. Even otherwise this Court finds that the final disposal of this criminal revision may take sometime and as per the custody certificate annexed with this criminal revision, the revisionist had already completed incarceration period of about 10 years in connection to the case under consideration. 19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, particularly keeping in view the order dated 17.1.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 28 of 2025 (Vikram Naiyyar @ A Sharma @ Sanjeev Naiyyar @ Sanjeev Sharma Vs. State of U.P & Anr.), it is provided that during pendency of this criminal revision, the execution of the sentence awarded under the judgment and order dated 6.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad in Criminal Case No. 6669 of 2016 (State vs. Vikram Naiyyar @ A. Sharma @ Sanjeev Naiyyar @ Sanjeev Sharma & Ors.), shall remain suspended. 20. List this matter for hearing after two months. 21. The trial court is directed to enlarge the revisionist on bail, forthwith after taking two sureties and a personal bond to its satisfaction.