IMPORTANT POINT
In case of two sentences for two offences Magistrate necessity of mentioning how the sentences will run: concurrently or consequently.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRR No.42 of 2018 whereby the Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant herein and affirmed the judgment and order of the Courts below.

3. The appeal involves a short controversy as would be clear from the facts set out hereinbelow.

4. The appellant was prosecuted and eventually convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) in CHI 88530 of 2013 by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar by order dated 12.05.2017. On the quantum of sentence, the Judicial Magistrate passed the following order:

      5. Felt aggrieved by the said order, the appellant(accused) filed CRA/324/2017 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalander. By order dated 08.12.2017, the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate.

6. The appellant (accused) felt aggrieved by the aforementioned order and filed revision in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The High Court, by impugned order, dismissed the revision and upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the Courts below.

7. The appellant(accused) felt aggrieved and filed the present appeal by way of special leave in this Court.

8. So, the short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the Courts below were justified in convicting the appellant.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant (accused) while assailing the legality and correctness of the impugned order argued only one point.

11. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the Judicial Magistrate while passing the order of sentence erred in not mentioning therein as to whether the two punishments awarded to the appellant under Section 279 and Section 304A IPC would run concurrently or consecutively.

12. Learned counsel pointed out that under Section 31 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Code”), it is mandatory for the Magistrate to specify as to whether the sentences awarded to the accused would run concurrently or consecutively when the accused is convicted for more than one offence in a trial.

13. Learned counsel urged that since in this case the appellant was awarded two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine amount of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 304-A IPC and six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine amount of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section 279 IPC, these two punishments should have been directed to run concurrently as provided under Section 31(1) of the Code.

14. Learned counsel for the State, however, could not find fault in the legal position, which governs the issue, and, in our view, rightly.

15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and modify the order of the Magistrate dated 12.05.2017, as indicated under.

16. In our considered opinion, it was necessary for the Magistrate to have ensured compliance of Section 31 of the Code when she convicted and sentenced the appellant