Back
1994 Supreme(P&H) 952
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
H.S.Bedi, J.
Jamil Khan
Versus
State Of Haryana
Crl. Misc. No. 15502-M of 1994,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 21, 1994
If two sentences are passed on the same day and it is not clear as to which of the two was the subsequent conviction, then both the sentences should run concurrently.
Headnote:
Concurrent Sentences - Criminal Law - The court directed the sentences imposed on the petitioner in two separate First Information Reports to run concurrently, relying on the legal principle that if two sentences are passed on the same day and it is not clear as to which of the two was the subsequent conviction, then both the sentences should run concurrently.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to have the two sentences imposed on him in two separate First Information Reports directed to run concurrently.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the legal principle from Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab applied to the case, and accordingly directed that the sentences imposed on the petitioner shall run concurrently.
Issues: The issue was whether the sentences imposed on the petitioner in two separate First Information Reports should run concurrently.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle that if two sentences are passed on the same day and it is not clear as to which of the two was the subsequent conviction, then both the sentences should run concurrently.
Final Decision: The court directed that the sentences imposed on the petitioner shall run concurrently.
H.S.Bedi, J.
1. The only prayer of the petitioner is that the two sentences imposed on him on 7th of April, 1992 in two separate First Information Reports be directed to run concurrently. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988(1) RCR(Crl.) 114 : 1988(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 168, that if two sentences are passed on the same day and it is not clear as to which of the two was the subsequent conviction, then in such a situation, both the sentences were to run concurrently. This judgment, to my mind, covers the case of the petitioner. It is, accordingly, directed that the sentences imposed on the petitioner shall run concurrently. Order accordingly.
