AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.J. - (1.) This is an application moved from Jail by convict Amar Singh S/O Teja Singh, confined in Central Jail, Ferozepur, praying therein that the applicant-petitioner has been convicted in FIR No. 3 under Sections 15/61/85 of the NDPS Act, Police Station, Kota, Rajasthan and has been sentenced for a period of 10 years imprisonment. In FIR No. 118, dated 30/05/2001, under Sections 15/61/85 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station, City Moga. He has been again convicted and sentenced for 10 years imprisonment. These are two separate cases. He has, vide this petition, prayed that these two sentences may be ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) NOTICE of this application was given to the Advocate General, Punjab. State of Punjab has filed a detailed reply, wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner was convicted in FIR No. 118 dated 30.05.2001, under Sections 15/61/85 of the NDPS Act, Police Station, Moga-II and has been sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year. Similarly, he has been convicted in sessions cases No. 3/94 CBM/Kota, under Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 15 years and fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. This order of conviction was passed on 25.08.2006. It is further submitted that the sentences awarded in both cases cannot run concurrently as the petitioner was convicted in both cases on different dates by two separate courts. The counsel for the State of Punjab has submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.R. Kudva v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2007(1) RCR(Crl.) 868 : 2007(1) RAJ 612 (SC), it has been held that the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not apply in this case as it is only the trial court, the appellate court or the revisional court, which can under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure order the sentences to run concurrently in the cases in which the accused has been convicted separately.
(3.) ON going through the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.R. Kudva v. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra). The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under : "However, in this case the provision of Section 427 of the Code was not invoked in the original cases or in the appeals. A separate application was filed before the High Court after the special leave petitions were dismissed. Such an application, in our opinion, was not maintainable. The High Court could not have exercised its inherent jurisdiction in a case of this nature as it had not exercised such jurisdiction while passing the judgments in appeal. Section 482 of the Code was, therefore, not an appropriate remedy having regard to the fact that neither the trial judge, nor the High Court while passing the judgments in appeal. Section 482 of the Code was, therefore, not an appropriate remedy having regard to the fact that neither the trial judge nor the High Court while passing the judgment of conviction and sentence indicated that the sentences passed against the appellant in both the cases shall run concurrently or Section 427 would be attracted. The said provision, therefore, could not be applied in a separate and independent proceeding by the High Court. The appeal being, devoid of any merit is dismissed." In the light of the above, the present petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The order be conveyed to the applicant-Amar Singh S/O Teja Singh, confined in Central Jail, Ferozepur. Petition dismissed.;