ORDER :

Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.

Delay Condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The first contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant emerges from Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.'). Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. is being extracted hereunder:

"427. Sentence on offender already sentence for another offence -

(1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a sub sequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence:

Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under section 122 in default of furnishing security is, while undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately.

(2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentences hall run concurrently with such previous sentence."

4. A perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that it is discretionary for a Court, to inter alia direct the running of a sentence imposed on a convict, at his second conviction, concurrently with the sentence which he is undergoing, on his first conviction. Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is relevant to indicate, that the appellant was tried in Case FIR No. 235 dated 15.10.1995 under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act, 1985 (here in after referred to as the ‘NDPS Act'), where under he was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa on 17.09.1996, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (and in case of default in payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years).

5. In respect of Case FIR No. 75 dated 12.5.1991 under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, the appellant was convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani on 24.5.2001 to suffer a sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (and in case of default in payment of fine, to under go further rigorous imprisonment for two years).

6. The prayer made by the appellant is, that the second conviction and sentence vide order dated 24.5.2001, should be directed to run concurrently with the sentence which he was undergo in furtherance of the firs conviction in Case FIR No. 235 dated 15.10.1995.

7. It needs to be noticed, that the first conviction of the appellant was under the NDPS Act. Even, the second conviction was under the same enactment. Insofar as the punishment for a second offence under NDPS Act is concerned, it is necessary to make a reference to Section 31 thereof. Section 31 of the NDPS Act is, accordingly, being extracted hereunder:

"31. Enhanced punishment for offences after previous conviction -

(1) If any person who has been convicted of the commission of, or attempt to commit, or abetment of, or criminal conspiracy to commit, any of the offences punishable under this Act is subsequently convicted of the commission of, or attempt to commit, or abetment of, or criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence punishable under this Act with the same amount of punishment shall be punished for the second and every subsequent offence with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one-half of the maximum term of imprisonment and also be liable to fine which shall extend to one-half of the maximum amount of fine.

(2) Where the person referred to in sub-section (1) is liable to be punished with a minimum term of imprisonment and to a minimum amount of fine, the minimum punishment for such person shall be one-half of the minimum term