RAJESH @ PREM @ PAWAN Vs. STATE & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition, the petitioner seeks the following prayers:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner has been convicted in two FIRs i.e. FIR No.535/2009 under Sections 392/397 IPC and directed to under rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years vide judgment and order on sentence dated 17th November, 2011 and also in FIR No.270/2010 under Sections 392/397/34 IPC and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years vide order on sentence dated 22nd October, 2013, it would be too harsh on the petitioner to undergo consecutive sentences and he would have to be in custody for 17 years plus sentence in default of payment of fine. It is thus prayed that the sentences be directed to run concurrently. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ammavasai & Anr. Vs. Inspector of Police, Valliyanur & Ors, (2000) AIR SC 3544 and of this Court in Azad Singh Vs. State, (1989) 4 DL 303. In Ammavasai's case , the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the appellant had been convicted in four different cases, the occurrence in all of which took place between 27th March, 2010 and 7th May, 1990. In each of the case, the appellant No.1 was convicted for offence punishable under Section 395 IPC and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 7 years. The second appellant therein was convicted in five different cases and thus had to undergo 7 years imprisonment in each case which would have thus meant a total period of 35 years in jail. Thus, the Supreme Court held that since the appellant may have to undergo a very long period of imprisonment of 28 years and 35 years respectively. Considering the fact that the cumulative period of sentence was too high, the Supreme Court held that the interest of justice would met if appellants therein were directed to undergo a total period of 14 years of imprisonment in respect of all the allegations passed against them.

(3.) In Azad Singh this Court was dealing with a case where the petitioner had been convicted in three cases for offences punishable under Sections 397/411 IPC, 397/34 IPC and 379 IPC and awarded rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months, seven years and two years respectively. Thus, exercising its inherent power, the High Court directed that the substantive sentences should run concurrently.