- (1.) The petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section 407 IPC and is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years, coupled with fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was further required to undergo simple imprisonment for five days.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not wish to press this petition on merits but only prays for making this sentence to run concurrently with the earlier sentence imposed upon him for his conviction for an offence under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, which was recorded on 31.3.2006. This fact, however, could not be brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate, who awarded sentence to the petitioner vide judgement and order dated 14.12.2006 and also before the Appellate Court, which dismissed the appeal on 5.7.2007. Now this revision has been filed against the said judgements with a delay of 1019 days, which has already been condoned by this Court on 6.7.2011.
(3.) Obviously, it seems that the petitioner has filed this revision only to see that the sentences, which are imposed on him in two different cases can be made to run concurrently. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Full Bench decision of this Court in Jang Singh V. State of Punjab, 2008 1 RCR(Cri) 323. This Court in Jang Singh's case has held that Court has discretion to convert consecutive sentences into concurrent running of sentence if the same is pending before the Court. It is further held that what principle and consideration will govern the exercise of this discretion and the guidelines to exercise discretion would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. Some indications are available in the judicial pronouncement, which are enumerated as follows: (1) Discretion to make the sentences to run consecutively or concurrently would be governed by different considerations, like facts of each case, nature and character of the offences, criminal history sheet and record of the offender, his age, sex. (2) Each case is to be decided depending upon its facts. Nature and gravity of the offence would certainly be a relevant factor and so too the record of the offender including his age, sex etc. (3) 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. (4) Direction to make the sentences to run concurrently 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. It may not be open for a person to seek such direction for making the sentences to run concurrently by moving an application under Sections 482 and 427 of Cr.P.C. (5) Section 427 Cr.P.C. is aimed at amelioration and this aspect may also require to be kept in view while exercising the discretion. (6) Thumb Rule that concurrent sentences are to be awarded in case of single transaction may not apply if the transaction relating to offences is not the same or the facts constituting two offences are different. It is the sentencing Court, which is required to apply its mind and consider what would be an appropriate sentence in a given case or in other words, if the sentences should be concurrent or consecutive. (7) If the accused is habitual offender and and is found guilty on various counts and it is suspected that he would be a menace to the society if let loose, then the term of consecutive sentences should be given. 2005 (1) RCR (Civil) 667 (SC) relied. (8) Habitual offenders should not be given some treatment given to normal offenders. Segregation of the habitual offender by making them to undergo sentences consecutively can also be accepted as principle. (9) Accused already undergoing imprisonment for life - Accused subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment in another case - subsequent sentence shall run concurrently - No specific order of concurrent running of sentence is required - However, 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. 2007 (1) RCR (Crl.) 868 (SC) and 2007 (1) R.A.J. 612 (SC) relied.;