Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 321
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harnaresh Singh Gill, J.
Pawan Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 3283 of 2019 (O&M) and CRM No. 38427 of 2019 in Criminal Revision No. 3284 of 2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 05-03-2020
Atul Goyal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of concurrent sentencing for offences arising from a single transaction, as supported by the precedents in V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana, Benson v. State of Kerala, and Anil Kumar v. State of Punjab.
Headnote:
Concurrent Sentencing - Criminal Offences - Section 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Section 406/120-B IPC - Section 427 Cr.P.C. - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application of Section 427 Cr.P.C. and referred to various precedents to establish the principle of concurrent sentencing for offences arising from a single transaction. The court relied on the judgments in V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana, Benson v. State of Kerala, and Anil Kumar v. State of Punjab to support its decision to order concurrent running of sentences for the petitioner's convictions in two separate cases.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted in two separate cases for criminal offences under various sections of the IPC. The petitioner sought concurrent running of sentences for the two convictions based on the argument that the transactions alleged in both cases arose from the same incident and set of allegations.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the petitioner's conviction in both cases and ordered the sentences to run concurrently based on the principle established in previous judgments. The court also reduced the petitioner's sentence to the period already undergone, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the sentences for the petitioner's convictions in two separate cases should run concurrently, and whether the petitioner's sentence should be reduced based on the period already undergone.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of concurrent sentencing for offences arising from a single transaction, as established in previous judgments, to order concurrent running of sentences for the petitioner's convictions in two separate cases. The court also exercised discretion to reduce the petitioner's sentence based on the period already undergone.
Final Decision: The court upheld the petitioner's conviction in both cases, ordered the sentences to run concurrently, and reduced the petitioner's sentence to the period already undergone.
JUDGMENT
Harnaresh Singh Gill, J. - This order shall dispose of the above noted two petitions as they have arisen out of same judgment dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Appellate Court.
2. The petitioner along with his co-accused had faced the trial qua commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC in FIR No. 172 dated 6.8.2012, registered at Police Station Sadar Ferozepur. The trial Court vide judgment and order dated 8.8.2017 convicted the petitioner under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC and sentenced him as under:-
| Under Section | Sentence | Fine | In default |
| 420 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment of one year | Rs. 2000/- | One month |
| 465 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment of six months | Rs. 1000/- | 15 days |
| 468 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment of one year | Rs. 1000/- | One month |
| 471 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment of six months | Rs. 1000/- | 15 days |
3. Aggrieved there-against, the accused preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 31.10.2019. Hence, the petitioner has preferred CRR-3283-2019.
4. In CRR-3284-2019, the petitioner along with his co-accused had also faced the trial qua commission of offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 IPC in FIR No. 61 dated 13.4.2012, registered at Police Station Guruharsahai. The trial Court vide judgment and order dated 21.3.2018 convicted the petitioner under Section 406/120-B IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The petitioner was also convicted under Section 420/120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 30 days.
5. In CRR-3284-2019, CRM-38427-2019 has been filed by the petitioner under Section 427 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for current running of the sentence imposed in this case with the sentenced imposed in the order challenged by way of CRR-3283-2019.
6. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the registration of FIR No. 61 dated 13.4.2012 in which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as stated above (CRR No. 3284 of 2019), another FIR No. 172 dated 6.8.2012 under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC was registered at P.S. Sadar, District Ferozepur and vide judgment/order dated 8.8.2017, the petitioner was convicted under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and the same was upheld vide judgment dated 31.10.2019 by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that sentence awarded in two separate FIRs may be ordered to run concurrently as both the FIRs were registered alleging that in order to increase the capacity of the sheller, a forged sale deed had been submitted and accordingly FIR No. 172 dated 6.8.2012 was registered and the trial Court and the Appellate Court relied upon the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which was on record as Ex. DJ and Ex. DJI, respectively, passed in FIR No. 172 dated 6.8.2012.
8. He further submits that in FIR No. 61 dated 13.4.2012 (in CRR-3284-2019), the petitioner was shown as proprietor of M/s. Narula Agro, but actually it was opened by Amit Kumar Narula and Raj Kumar Narula in the name of Pawan Kumar and when PW-2 visited M/s. Narula Agro in March 2012, Amit Kumar and Raj Kumar (since deceased) were shifting rice from M/s. Narula Agro to M/s. Jai Shiv Bhola i.e. another firm and the FIR No. 172 dated 6.8.2012 alleging that in order to increase the capacity of sheller, a forged sale deed was submitted by M/s. Narula
