Mr. Sudip Ahluwalia, J. (Oral):- CRM No.7633 of 2018 in CRR No.4440 of 2017 & CRM No.7630 of 2018 in CRR No.4439 of 2017: Notice of the applications.

2. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Manish Bansal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. Let copies of the applications be supplied to him during the course of the day.

3. These are the applications moved under Section 427 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for concurrent running of various sentences awarded to the applicant(s)-petitioner(s) by the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yamuna Nagar, in two different F.I.Rs., bearing F.I.R. No.178, dated 22.07.2008 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 506, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sadar Yamuna Nagar, and F.I.R. No.179, dated 23.07.2008 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 506, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sadar Yamuna Nagar. Vide judgments and orders dated 01.05.2014/02.05.2014, the applicant(s)- petitioner(s) have been convicted under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along with fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) each in both the F.I.Rs. and in default thereof they are further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one-fourth of the maximum punishment prescribed as per provisions of law.

4. The contention of the applicant(s)-petitioner(s) before this Court is that in the circumstances, the total period of sentence awarded to them would come to four years if they were to run consecutively, and therefore, the prayer for a direction that the sentences so awarded to them to run concurrently against them.

5. In this regard, reliance has been placed on a decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in which, relying upon various earlier decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State of Punjab Vs. Madan Lal”, AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2836, “V.K. Bansal Vs. State of Haryana and others”, [2013(4) Law Herald (SC) 3099 : 2013(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2293 (SC)] : 2013 Cr.L.J. 3986, “Shyam Pal Vs. Dayawati Besoya and another” [2016(4) Law Herald (SC) 3075 : 2016(5) Law Herald (P&H) 3881 (SC) : 2016 LawHerald.Org 1912] : AIR 2016 SC 5021 and “Ammavasai and another Vs. Inspector of Police and others”, AIR 2000 SC 3544, the sentences awarded to the concerned petitioner in as many as 32 cases were ordered to be run concurrently by observing inter alia :-

“Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case, offence involved, sentences awarded, period of detention of the petitioner as on date and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Madan Lal, V.K. Bansal vs. State of Haryana & Ors., Shyam Pal vs. Dayawati Besoya & Anr. and Ammavasai & Anr. vs. Inspector of Police & Ors. (supra), I am of the considered view that it would not be inconsistent with the administration of criminal justice if the petitioner is allowed the benefit of discretion contained in section 427 of the Code to meet the ends of justice. However, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.K. Bansal vs. State of Haryana and Ors. and Shyam Pal vs. Dayawati Besoya and Anr. (supra), the direction for concurrent running of sentences would be limited only to the substantive sentences alone.

In such circumstances, the present misc. petition is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentences awarded to the petitioner in the above referred 32 cases would run concurrently, however, the petitioner will have to serve default sentences as the provisions of section 427 of the CrPC do not permit a direction for concurrent running of substantive sentences with the sentences awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation. The sentences, which the petitioner has been directed to undergo in default of payment of fine/compensation shall not be effected by this