2002 Supreme(MP) 156

N.S. Azad, J.
Shahid v. State of M.P.
Misc. Cr. Case No. 690 of 2002 (J); Decided on 6.2.2002.*

Headnote:Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 427 and 428 -- two Sessions Trials for one incident only -- sentence of imprisonment may be made to run concurrently.

        naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 427 rFkk 428 && ,d&gh ?kVuk ds fy, nks ls’ku fopkj.k && dkjkokl dk naMkns‘k lkFk&lkFk pyus ds fy, fd;k tk ldrk gSA

        The petitioners seek the relief of this direction that in exercise of inherent powers, the sentences imposed upon them in Sessions Trials No.320/96 and 321/96 may be ordered to run concurrently.

        It is not being disputed that the incident of both the aforesaid Sessions. Trials occurred in one of the same transaction of loot and making away good with the loot property, at Rahatgarh, district Sagar on 9.7.1996.

       

        In S.T. No. 320/96, each of the petitioners and one Azad is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years, in addition to a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, for an offence punishable under section 392 IPC and is further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years, in addition to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for offence punishable under section 397 IPC. In ST. No. 321/96, the petitioner Shahid is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years for offence punishable under section 324 IPC, in addition to a fine of Rs. 200/- and is further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years for offence punishable under section 326/34 IPC, in addition to a fine of Rs. 500/- whereas petitioner Pankaj is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years, in addition to fine of Rs. 200/- for offence punishable under section 324/34 of the IPC and is further sentenced to underge R.I. for 10 years for an offence punishable under section 326 IPC, in addition to a fine of Rs. 500/- for offence punishable under section 333 and 333/34 respectively also and each of the petitioners Pankaj and Shahid is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years, in addition to a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, The sentences imposed for the offences punishable under sections 324, 324/34, 326, 326/34, 333, 333/34 are ordered to run concurrently.

       Then in Criminal Appeal No. 1552/97 filed by these petitioners and co-accused Azad challenging the conviction and sentences imposed on them in S.T. No. 320/96, this Court reduced the period of sentences imposed on accused Azad and one of these petitioners Pankaj for offence punishable under section 392 IPC, to the period already undergone. So far as the petitioner Shahid is concerned, the period of sentence imposed for an offence punishable under section 392 read with section 397 IPC, it is reduced to 7 years R.I., in addition to a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

        In Criminal Appeal No. 1551/97, also, filed against the conviction and sentences of S.T. No. 321/96, this Court dictated that as the offence punishable under section 326, and 326/34 IPC are covered in the offences punishable under section 333 and 333/34 IPC, separate conviction and imposition of sentence was not required. Thus, this Court set aside the conviction and sentences imposed on these petitioners and co-accused Azad for offence punishable under section 326 and 326/34 IPC. Further, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court reduced the period of sentences imposed upon these petitioners for offences punishable under sections 333 and 333/34 IPC respectively to a period of 5 years maintaining imposition of sentences on these petitioners for offences punishable under sections 324 and 324/34 IPC, this Court directed that the sentences will run concurrently.

        Since the incidents of both the Sessions Trials No. 320/96 and 321/96, occurred in one transaction of loot and making away with the looted property, it is ordered that the sentences imposed upon each of the petitioners Shahid and Pankaj in S.T. No. 320/96 and 321/96, shall run concurrently. In case, these petitioners or any of these petitioners is found to have already undergone the sentences imposed in both the aforesaid Sessions Trials on treating them to run concurrently, they or he, as the case may be, shall be released forthwith.