- (1.) THIS petition u/s.482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by accused-petitioner Hansraj alias Pintu, praying that the sentences awarded to petitioner in two criminal cases, reference of which is given below, be ordered to run concurrently. Petitioner has been convicted and sentenced in two different criminal cases in following manner: Criminal Case No. Judgment Dated Offence Sentence to undergo Criminal Case No.374/2006 27.06.2008 Under Section 224/34 IPC and 3 of PDPP Act 2 Years simple imprisonment for each offence with fine of Rs.100/- in each, which has been affirmed by the appellate court Sessions Case No.109/2007 29.08.2008 Under Section 395 IPC 10 Years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, which has been reduced by this court vide judgment dated 03.09.2009 in Criminal Appeal No.1178/2008, to a period of seven years RI
(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner contended that sentences awarded to petitioner in all two cases, referred above, are not running concurrently, while petitioner is serving the same one by one, therefore, he has not been released in any case. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that petitioner has served out sentence of more than six years. Petitioner moved an application under Section 427 Cr.P.C. praying for an order to run both the sentences concurrently. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Tijara, vide its order dated 06.05.2011 rejected that application holding that though two sentences could be ordered to run concurrently, but since the sentences have been awarded by different courts in two different criminal matters therefore it would not be just and proper to order for that. Petitioner has now been required to undergo full term of sentence consecutively in each of these cases, which in effect would mean that despite there being a common and overlapping period of confinement in all two cases, he would have to separately undergo the sentence of seven years. Learned counsel citing provisions of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure argued that even if sentences have been awarded in different trials by separate judgments, they are nevertheless required to run concurrently because it is the same person who is convicted. Learned counsel in support of this argument has cited judgment of Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Madan Lal - (2009) 5 SCC 238, division bench judgment of this Court in Vimal Mehra vs. State and Ors.-2008 (3) WLC (Raj.) 624, and single bench judgments of this Court in Achalchand Sancheti vs. State of Raj.-2010 (3) WLC (Raj.) 304, Mahavir Sharma vs. State-2007 WLC (Raj.) UC 786, Hardeva and Ors. vs. State -2004 (1) WLC (Raj.) 295. and Mahavir Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan � 2007 (2) R.C.C. 500 and Shishram @ Shisho Vs. State of Rajasthan � 2011 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 892. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. He, however, could not justify why in the face of specific provisions of Section 427, sentences awarded to petitioner in different two trials by different judgments, should not be ordered to run concurrently.
(3.) A perusal of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shows that when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such imprisonment shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. There is however a proviso to Section 427 of Cr.P.C. to the effect 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.;