##PAGE1##

CRM-M-24607-2024 (O&M)

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

53 CRM-M-24607-2024 (O&M)

Date of decision : 06.04.2026

Satnam Singh ..... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab ..... Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Argued by : Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

This petition under Section 482 of ‘Code of Criminal

Procedure’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘CrPC’ only, has been filed for issuance of direction to the effect that the sentence awarded to the petitioner in a case arising out of FIR No.153 dated 03.09.1998, under Section 399 of Indian Penal Code, Section 25 of Arms Act and Section 5 of Explosive Act,

Police Station Civil Lines Patiala, shall run concurrently.

2. The instant petition has been filed in the backdrop of the fact that vide abovementioned FIR, the petitioner was sent to face trial by the SHO Police Station Civil Lines Patiala. The abovementioned trial was held in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Patiala, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only. The learned trial Court

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.06 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-24607-2024 (O&M)

2 vide judgment dated 29.11.2002 convicted the petitioner and awarded the

following sentence:-

Under Section Punishment Fine Sections 399/149 To undergo rigorous

of IPC imprisonment for three years Rs.20,000/-

Section 25 of Arms Act To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year

3. Aggrieved of the abovementioned judgment, the petitioner along with his co-convicts filed an appeal in this Court, which was dismissed on 24.01.2013. As a result thereof, the sentence awarded to the petitioner by

the learned trial Court has been maintained.

4. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that the learned trial Court has committed an error, when it failed to mention that the sentences awarded to the petitioner shall run concurrently.

Hence the present petition.

5. Heard.

6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a bare perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Court and the subsequent order, whereby the benefit of bail was awarded to the petitioner by the learned trial Court, itself show that the intention of the learned trial Court while imposing sentence upon the petitioner was that all the sentences, awarded to the petitioner, would run concurrently. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, if the intention of the learned trial Court would have been otherwise, the total period supposed to be undergone by the petitioner would

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.06 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-24607-2024 (O&M)

3 have been more than three years, and in that eventuality, the learned trial

Court could not have released the petitioner on bail after conviction.

7. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, once the appeal has been dismissed by this Court, in the garb of directions, in a petition under Section 482 of CrPC, the relief, which could have been

granted by the Appellate Court only, cannot be claimed.

8. The record has been perused carefully.

9. To deal with similar situation, the Full Bench of this Court in the case of ‘Jang Singh V/s State of Punjab’, 2008(1) RCR (Crl)323, has

held as under:-

“Direction to make the sentences to run concurrently can be exercised by the trial Court or by the appellate Court or a reversional Court at the time of exercising appellate or revisional jurisdiction as well. It may not be open for a person to seek such direction for making the sentences to run concurrently by moving an application under Section 482 and

427 of Criminal Procedure Code.”

10. With regard to factual matrix of the present case, it shall not be out of place to mention here that the prerogative to issue a direction with regard to concurrent/consecutive imprisonment lies with the Appellate