PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the leaned counsel for the parties.

2. Heard Mr. A. M. Sharma, the learned counsel appointed for the petitioner and Mr. N. R. Rode, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

3. In this petition, petitioner- a life convict for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has sought relief under Section 427(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. Undisputedly, while undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment, the petitioner was released on parole on 06.1.2016 for a period of thirty days and it was extended further for sixty days. The petitioner was supposed to surrender before the jail authorities on or before 06.4.2016, but he failed to do so. Therefore, an offence punishable under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhadrawati, after the trial, found the petitioner guilty of the said offence and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days.

5. It is submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhadrawati did not consider the provision of Section 427(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which says “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 sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.”. The petitioner has sought his entitlement under the aforesaid section.

6. Mr. Rode, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the petition and submitted that the explanation to Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code states that the punishment under Section 224 is in addition to the punishment for which the person to be apprehended or detained in custody was liable for the offence with which he was charged, or of which he was convicted and therefore both the sentences can not run concurrently.

7. We have considered the submissions on behalf of both the parties. At the outset, for ready reference the texts of both the sections i.e. Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 224 of Indian Penal Code, are reproduced herein below :

“427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence :-

(1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced ona subsequent 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 sentence, 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, whilst 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 sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.”

“224 - Resistance of obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension -

Whoever, intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself for any offence with which he is charged or of which he has been convicted, or escapes or attempts to escape from any custody in which he is lawfully detained for any such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description or a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Explanation - The punishment in this section is in addition to the punishment for which the person to be apprehended or detaine