DHARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
Prafulla C. Pant, J. -
(1.) THIS application is received on behalf of the convict Dharam Singh, from the jail. Heard, and perused the application.
(2.) 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/ - 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
(3.) 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 Pat. 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 And. 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.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.