Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. V.S. Rana, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, Asstt. A.G., Haryana.

JUDGMENT :

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. is for the issuance of directions that the sentence awarded vide judgment and order dated 24.07.2006 in FIR No.422 dated 24.11.1999 registered under Sections 307, 341, 34IPC at Police Station Sadar Palwal, District Faridabad be ordered to concurrently with the conviction and sentence in the Trial emanating out of FIR No.376 dated 22.09.2000 registered under Sections 302, 34 IPC at Police Station Sadar Palwal, District Palwal.

2. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced in the following cases:-

Sr. No.	FIR No. dated	U/s	P.S.	Sentence	Date of sentence	Name of Court
1.	FIR No.422 dt. 24.11.99	307, 341, 34 IPC	Sadar Palwal	6 years	24.7.06	ASJ Faridabad
2.	FIR No.376 dt. 22.9.2000	302, 34 IPC	Sadar Palwal	Life imprisonment	1.11.06	ASJ Faridabad
3.	FIR No.374 dt. 1.10.01	14, 149, 302, 307, 120-B IPC and 25 Arms Act	Sadar Palwal	Life imprisonment	30.1.07	ASJ Faridabad

3. The petitioner filed an appeal No, 1816-SB-2006 in FIR No.422 dated 24.11.1999 which is still pending adjudication. As against the convictions in FIR No.376 dated 22.09.2000 and FIR No.374 dated 01.10.2001, he filed CRA-D-182-DB-2007 and CRA-D-398-DB-2007 respectively which were dismissed by this Court.

4. The sentence awarded in the Trial emanating out of FIR No.374 dated 01.10.2001 U/s 148, 149, 302 IPC, P.S. Sadar Palwal was ordered to run concurrently with the sentence awarded in the Trial emanating out of FIR No.376 dated 22.09.2000 U/s 302/34 IPC, P.S. Sadar Palwal, District Palwal vide judgment dated 12.02.2017 passed by this Court in CRWP No.1310 of 2015.

5. Now the instant petition has been filed seeking the concurrent running of sentences in the conviction recorded in the Trial emanating out of FIR No.422 dated 24.11.1999 and that recorded in FIR No.374 dated 01.10.2001.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in terms of Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. this Court could direct that the subsequent sentence would run concurrently with the previous sentence. In case, the discretion was not exercised by this Court, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injustice. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the cases of Sher Singh Versus State of M.P., 1989(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 696 and Joginder Singh Versus State of Punjab, 1996(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 74.

7. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that while exercising powers under Sections 427(2) Cr.P.C. this Court had already directed the concurrent running of sentences in Trials emanating out of FIR No.376 dated 22.09.2000 and FIR No.374 dated 01.10.2001. Section 427(2) Cr.RC. was in the nature of a positive mandate where this Court had no discretion but to order concurrent running of sentences in each case of life imprisonment. On the contrary, as regards Section 427(1) Cr.RC., the discretion lay with the Court as to whether thought it fit to order the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with previous sentence. As convictions had been recorded for different offences by different Courts on different dates and the offences in question being under Sections 307 IPC and 302 IPC respectively which were of a heinous nature this Court ought not to exercise its discretion under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. to order the sentences to run concurrently. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the case of Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti Versus Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad & others, 1988(4) SCC183.

8. The learned counsel for the State further contends that it was the duty of the Court to impose such punishment that would have the effect of deterring other potential criminals and must also be appropriate befitting the crime which in the present case is attempt to murder. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the cases of Akram Khan Versus State of West Bengal, 2012(1) RC.R (Criminal) 168, Mulla & Another Versus State of U.P., 2010 AIR (Supreme Court) 342. State of Rajastha