IMPORTANT POINT
When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment of life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment of life, any remission or commutation granted in respect of the earlier sentence of life imprisonment will not ipso facto be available in respect of the subsequent sentence.

JUDGMENT

J.S. Verma, J. - The short question arising for decision by us is the true meaning of Subsection (2) of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and its effect.

2. For an offence of murder committed on 17.9.1978 the petitioner, Ranjit Singh, was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. by the Sessions Judge on 6.3 .1979 and sentenced to life imprisonment which was confirmed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. While the petitioner was on parole after his conviction and sentence for first murder, he was tried for the second murder committed on October 25, 1980, and convicted under Section 303 I.P.C. This conviction was altered to one under Section 302 I.P.C. and for the second murder also the petitioner was sentenced by this Court on 30.9.1983 to life imprisonment instead of death sentence. This court while disposing of the petitioner's appeal, in this manner, directed as under:

"We feel that life imprisonment would be the proper sentence that should be imposed upon the appellant. We, accordingly, reduce the sentence of death imposed upon him and sentence him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. However, since the present murder was committed by him within a span of one year of his earlier conviction and that too when he was released on parole we are clearly of the view that the instant sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to him should not run concurrently with his earlier sentence of life imprisonment. We, therefore, direct that in case any remission or commutation in respect of his earlier sentence is granted to him the present sentence should commence thereafter,"

The petitioner has now filed this Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for issuance of a suitable writ or direction to correct the above direction given in the order dated September 30, 1983, to bring it in consonance with Section 427(2) Cr.P.C and consequently for his release on the ground that both life sentences had to run concurrently in accordance with Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. and he is entitled to relief because he has undergone fourteen years sentence of imprisonment with remissions at the time of filing the Writ Petition on February 19, 1990. This is how the question of construction of Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. arises in the present case.

3. Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is as under:

"427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence - (1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a 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 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, 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."

4. Shri R.K. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that this Court's above quoted direction in the judgment dated 30.9.1983 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 418 of 1982 while affirming the conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. for the second murder and imposing the punishment of life imprisonment for it also amounts to directing that the two sentences of life imprisonment are to run consecutively and not concurrently which is in direct conflict with Sub-section (2) of Section 427 Cr.P.C. He urged that the life span of a person could be only one and, therefore, any subsequent life sentence must run concurrently and not