- (1.) HEARD.
(2.) THE instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner in relation to two criminal revisions being S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.413/2012 and S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.485/2010. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was convicted in Case No.234/2008 after trial for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vide judgment dated 16.6.2009 passed by A.C.J.M., Gulabpura and he was sentenced to one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and in default to further under go 3 months' simple imprisonment. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said judgment was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gulabpura vide judgment dated 1.7.2010. The petitioner has preferred SB Criminal Revision No.485/2010 against the said conviction. In the meantime, in another Case No.153/2009, the petitioner was convicted after trial for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vide judgment dated 6.4.2010 passed by A.C.J.M., Gulabpura and therein also, he was sentenced to one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and in default to further under go 3 months' simple imprisonment. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said judgment was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gulabpura vide judgment dated 8.11.2010. The petitioner has preferred SB Criminal Revision No.413/2012 against the said conviction. Both the revisions are pending consideration before this Court. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner continues to be in custody since 11.7.2010 i.e. he has suffered actual imprisonment of two years in two cases. The instant misc. petition has now been filed with the prayer that the substantive sentences awarded to the petitioner in the aforesaid two cases be directed to run concurrently because he has already served out the substantial sentence and is now kept in custody only for suffering the sentence in default of payment of fine. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted bail in revision but he could not be released as he was in custody in the second case. Placing reliance on the decision of State of Punjab. vs. Madan Lal reported in 2009(2) Criminal Court Cases 812 (SC), counsel for the petitioner prays that the substantive sentences awarded to the petitioner may be made concurrent. Learned PP does not dispute this legal position.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid facts, particularly, the period of custody (2 years) suffered by the petitioner and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred case, the instant misc. petition is allowed and it is hereby directed that the substantive sentences awarded to the petitioner in the above referred two cases shall now run concurrently.;