The court has the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to rectify mistakes made by lower courts in not considering the question of concurrent or consecutive sentences.

S.S.Grewal, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, only deals with the prayer that the sentences of imprisonment awarded to Rajwant Singh petitioner in Sessions Case No. 10 of 1986, Sessions Trial No. 19 of 1986, concerning FIR No. 173 dated 11th November, 1985 (Re. State v. Rajwant Singh and others) registered under Sections 148/302/326/324/325/149, Indian Penal Code may be ordered to run concurrently.

2. According to the averments in the petition, Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, convicted and sentenced the present petitioner to undergo 11 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 326, IPC, for causing injuries to Harbhajan Singh. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Apart from the aforesaid sentences, the petitioner was also awarded sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 324, IPC, for causing injuries to Kashmir Singh. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. Criminal Appeal No. 428-DB of 1986 filed by the petitioner and his other co-accused was dismissed by High Court.

3. It was next pleaded that when the time for petitioners release by the Superintendent, Central Jail Gurdaspur, came, it was revealed that neither the trial Court, nor High Court had considered the question whether the sentences were to run concurrently, or consecutively.

4. The facts referred to above were admitted in the reply filed on behalf of the State.

5. It seems that neither, in the trial Court, nor before the High Court, when the appeal against the conviction and sentences passed against the petitioner and his other accused came up for hearing, were any submissions made that the sentences awarded to the petitioner, referred to above may be ordered to run concurrently. Under Section 31(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the trial Court, or the High Court, while considering the appeal of the petitioner and his co-accused, was competent to inflict consecutive sentences unless the said Court directs that such punishments shall run concurrently. Apart from that provisionsof Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code, concerning awarding of punishments in such like cases, were also to be considered. It is quite patent that neither the trial Court, nor the High Court while disposing of the appeals of the petitioner, or his other co-accused, dealt with this question. To rectify this mistake, it would be desirable to exercise inherent Jurisdication of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed, and the substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded to Rajwant Singh petitioner under Section 326, as well as under Section 324 of the India Penal Code, referred to above, shall run concurrently. However, the sentences of fine, or the sentences of imprisonment, awarded in default thereof, shall stand as already directed.

7. This petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Petition allowed.