Concurrent running of Sentences – Person convicted in different cases cannot seek the concurrent running of sentences

Mr. Surinder Gupta, J.:- The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 06.12.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner-convict against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 19.12.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana vide which the petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code(for short-IPC) and sentenced as follows:-

Sr. No.	Under Section	Sentence
1	279 IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for a period of Six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further SI for a period of ten days.
2	304-A IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, further RI for a period of 20 days.

2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.10.2008 at about 8.30 a.m., complainant Dr. Nazar Singh was going for his duty in his car towards village Fatehgarh Panj Graiyan, District Sangrur, where he was posted. When he crossed village Gill, a bus of Libra company bearing registration No.PB-13M-8937 was going ahead of his car at a high speed. It was being driven by its driver (petitioner Jagdev Singh) in a rash and negligent manner. The driver of the bus tried to cross one vehicle and in the process, hit a motorcycle coming from opposite side. The driver and pillion rider of the motorcycle namely Arshdeep and Vikramjit Singh fell on the ground and due to the multiple injuries suffered by them in the accident, both died at the spot. The petitioner stopped the bus and then fled away from the spot.

3. On the statement of Dr. Nazar Singh, FIR No.222 dated 22.10.2008 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A & 427 IPC, at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana. Dead body of both the deceased were taken to the hospital for post-mortem examination. Offending bus, motorcycle and other articles were taken into possession and rough sketch of the place of occurrence was prepared. After completion of investigation, challan against the petitioner was presented in the Court.

4. On finding a prima facie case, petitioner was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A and 427 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In support of its case, prosecution examined Head Constable Satish Kumar as PW1, Complainant Dr. Nazar Singh as PW2, Mechanic HC Sukhdarshan Singh as PW3, ASI Amrik Singh as PW4. Thereafter, evidence of prosecution was closed by order.

6. Entire incriminating evidence was put to the petitioner while recording his statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, which he denied and pleaded his false implication.

7. In his defence evidence, petitioner-accused examined Harjinder Singh as DW1 and after tendering copies of award dated 03.05.2012 passed by MACT, Ludhiana as Ex.DA and Ex.DB and closed his evidence.

8. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence before it, held that the bus in question was being driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner and the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner; convicted and sentenced him as detailed in opening para of this judgment.

9. In appeal, this fact also came on record that the petitioner has also been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A and 427 IPC in case bearing FIR No.10 dated 21.01.2010 registered at Police Station City Malerkotla, which was registered after about 15 months of the present incident.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Dr. Nazar Singh, complainant, who appeared as PW1 before the trial Court, has admitted that there was no rashness and negligence on the part of petitioner and t