Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Daya Chaudhary, J.
Budh Ram —Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and Anr. —Respondents
Cri. Revision No.1293 of 2012 and 1318 of 2012
Decided on 1.10.2012
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. S.P.S. Sandhu, Advocate.
For the Respondent/State: Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, D.A.G., Punjab
For Respondent No.2:Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
In case a person is already undergoing sentence then subsequent imprisonment is to commence only on expiration of previous sentence, unless both sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
Headnote:Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 31 and 427—Dishonour of cheque—Conviction—Running of sentence— Power to order to run sentences concurrently can be exercised by trial court or by Appellate Court or by Revisional Court and prayer can be accepted at any stage— Discretion is open to be exercised by any Court dependent upon facts and circumstances of each case—Petitioner is not a habitual offender as no other case of similar nature is pending against him and he is having no criminal background—Judgments in both cases were passed on same dates by trial Court as well as by Appellate Court and revision petitions have been filed to challenge judgments of both Courts below—To make prayer at the time of hearing of revision petitions is not bar—Sentences to run concurrently. (Paras 7 to 11)
Daya Chaudhary, J.— Two Criminal Revisions bearing Nos.1293 of 2012 and 1318 of 2012 shall stand disposed of by passing a common Order as the petitioner, in both the revision petitions, is same. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Criminal Revision No.1293 of 2012.
2. Petitioner Budh Ram was-convicted in two cases for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A complaint was made by respondent No.2/complainant and the petitioner faced trial. He was convicted/sentenced by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 1.10.2010. Subsequently, the said judgment of conviction/sentence was challenged by way of filing appeal, which was also dismissed and the judgment of trial Court was upheld vide Order dated 27.4.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions judge, Ludhiana. The petitioner has filed two Criminal Revision Nos. 1293 of 2012 and 1318 of 2012 to challenge the judgment passed by the Appellate Court in both the complaints.
3. Notice of motion in this case was issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised certain arguments on merits of the case but the Court was not convinced after hearing the arguments raised by both sides. A request has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the sentences awarded in both cases may be permitted to run concurrently as the petitioner is same in both the petitions and the offence is also same i.e. under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in, the case of Jang Singh v. State of Punjab1 as well as the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case State of Punjab v Madan Lal2 in support of his contention. He submits that the Court has power to issue direction to make the sentences to run concurrently during the trial, at the appellate stage as well as at the revisional stage. Learned counsel also submits that although two different complainants are there but the petitioner and the nature of offence are same. He has also argued that the petitioner is not a habitual offender as no other case is pending against him. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was convicted in both the cases on same date and because of fault of the lawyer, who was representative of the petitioner, he should not be punished as neither the request was made at the time of passing of judgment of the trial Court nor at the time of passing of judgment by the Appellate Court. The prayer is being made at the time of disposal of revision petitions.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.
2/complainant, on the other side, opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that although the petitioner is same but the complainants are different and it cannot be said that it is a case between the same parties.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant relies upon the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case Ku. Rekha Mishra v State of Madhya Pradesh.3 I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the judgments of both the Courts below as well as other documents on the file. Admittedly, both the revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner against the judgments dated 01.10.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner has lost before both the Courts below and has approached before this Court by way of filing two revision petitions and when the Court was not convinced on the merits of the case, a request for running the sentences concurrently has been made in view of Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. Section 427 of the Cr.P.C regulates the mode of execution of sentence in those cases where the offender is already undergoing a sentence for another offence. The same reads as under:
“427.Sentence on offender already sentenced for another
