IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

241 CRR-1134-2025 (O&M).

Decided on: February 10, 2026.

MANOJ ALIAS SHERU ...Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ PRESENT Mr. Sabir Singh, Advocate, (Legal-aid-counsel)

for the petitioner.

Mr. Onkar Singh Wahla, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. J. (ORAL)

The instant revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 02.04.2019 passed in Crl. Appeal bearing CIS No.112 of 2016, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, whereby the judgment of conviction dated 06.05.2016 and order of sentence dated 10.05.2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ganaur in criminal case bearing CIS No.CHI/78 of 2015 dated 14.12.2015 arising out of FIR No.610 dated 01.12.2015, under Sections 8/9 of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, registered at Police, Station, Ganaur has been upheld. The petitioner-convict was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-

2 At the very outset, learned counsel contends that he restricts his prayer and challenge to the extent whereby the sentences were ordered to run consecutively.

3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that both the Courts erred in directing consecutive running of the sentence of one year awarded to the petitioner, in addition to the life sentence already being undergone by him for the offence under Section

302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was already undergoing imprisonment for life at the time of his subsequent conviction. In view of the mandate of Section 427(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 the subsequent sentence is required to run concurrently with the previous sentence. Non-grant of such statutory benefit is therefore contrary to law.

5 Counsel further relies upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of State of Andhra Pradesh and another Vs. Vijayanagaram Chinna Reddappa’ passed in Special Leave Petition (Criminal)No.2820 of 2023 decided on 28.04.2023. The relevant part of the same is extracted as under: -

“427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence.-(1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence:

Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately.

(2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.”

At the outset, we must remember that we are dealing with the case of an escaped convict. Therefore, the case of the detenu would obviously be covered by Section 426(2)(b), which deals with case of an escaped convict, already serving a sentence severer in kind, but imposed with a less severe sentence in respect of a subsequent conviction. Section 426(2)(b) Cr.P.C. states that insofar as an escaped convict is concerned, the sentence imposed in the second or subsequent conviction shall take effect only after the escaped convict has suffered imprisonment for a further period equal to that which at the time of escape remained unexpired of his former sentence.

But insofar as a life convict is concerned, in law, no part of the sentence remains unexpired. The remission granted by the Government to a life convict, cannot be taken to