Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harkesh Manuja, J.
Nachhattar Singh @ Channu – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-S No. 333 of 2019
Decided On : 15-05-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction details of appellant. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. other firs and convictions of appellant. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments on concurrent sentences. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's reasoning for concurrent sentences. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. order for concurrent sentences granted. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
Judgment
New Page 1Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J.
CRA-S-333-2019 & CRM-40483-2022
1. By way of present appeal under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment dated 08.12.2018 passed by the Court of Ld. Sessions Judge, Bathinda in FIR No. 35 dated 12.02.2016 u/s 379-B & 411 read with Section 34 of IPC at P.S. Kotwali, Bathinda whereby appellant has been convicted u/s 379-B & 411 of IPC and sentenced as below:-
| Under Section 379-B IPC | R.I. for period of five years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of six months. |
| Under Section 411 IPC | R.I. for a period of one year and fine or Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for a period of one month. |
2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a complaint of snatching of mobile phone and other articles by one Rahul Kumar, FIR No. 35 dated 12.02.2016 u/s 379-B & 411 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered at P.S. Kotwali, Bathinda. During the course of investigation, accused persons were arrested and after the completion of all other necessary formalities, challan against the accused persons was presented in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, who committed it to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 19.05.2017. Session Court vide judgment dated 08.12.2018 held appellant guilty u/s 379-B & 411 of IPC and he was ordered to be sentenced as aforesaid.
3. By way of present appeal, it is judgment dated 08.12.2018 which has been impugned.
4. At this stage, it would be appropriate to note that appellant also faced trial in another F.I.R No.33 dated 19.02.2017 registered at P.S Kotwali, Bathinda under Sections 379-B, 411, 413 IPC. After the culmination of trial in the above said FIR, based on judgment of conviction dated 21.09.2018 appellant was sentenced as under:
| Under Section 379-B IPC | Under Section 379-B IPC |
| Under Section 411 IPC | R.I. for a period of one year and fine or Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for a period of one month |
5. In addition to above 2 FIRs, there have been few other cases as well against the petitioner, brief details of which are as below:
| FIR No. 268, Dated 10.10.2015, U/S 324, 323, 34 of IPC, Police Station - Kotwali, Bathinda | Convicted and order to sentence for R.I. 2 months by learned Additional Session Judge, Bathinda and same has been completed on 04.04.2023 |
| FIR No. 148, Dated 29.06.2018, U/S 379-B, 411 of IPC, Police Station - Kotwali, Bathinda | Convicted and ordered to sentence already undergone on dated 10.09.2019 by learned trail Court and no appeal is pending |
| FIR No. 170, Dated 29.07.2016, U/S 379-B of IPC, Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda | Acquitted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide order dated 29.01.2019 |
| FIR No. 117, Dated 01.06.2017, U/S 379-B, 411 of IPC, Police Station - Kotwali, Bathinda | Acquitted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide order dated 13.11.2018 |
6. As per the custody certificate, sentence in the present case was supposed to commence only after the completion of the sentence in case F.I.R No. 33 dated 19.02.2017 and other cases and till date custody in present case has been very negligible. Meanwhile application bearing No 40483 of 2022 U/s 427 Cr.P.C was filed on behalf of appellant with a prayer to order the concurrent running of sentences passed by way of order dated 08.12.2018 by the Ld. Session Judge, Bathinda (arising out of F.I.R No.35 dated 12.02.2016 registered at P.S Kotwali, Bathinda impug
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary powers of the criminal courts in applying Section 427 Cr.P.C. and determining the concurrent running of sentences in multiple cas....
The court clarified that unless explicitly ordered, sentences from multiple convictions run consecutively under Section 427 of Cr.P.C., accommodating set-off for time served, emphasizing the legislat....
The High Court has the authority to direct sentences from separate convictions to run concurrently under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ensuring fair treatment in sentencing.
The court ruled that once a judgment attains finality, it cannot be altered or reviewed except to correct clerical errors; substantive modifications require specific procedural grounds.
(1) If a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such subsequent term of imprisonment would normally commence at expiration of im....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
