FAKIRA Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and have been taken through the record. By means of the present application, the applicant has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 15.4.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mau District Chitrakoot in Case No. 7/14/2013, State v. Fakira, under Section 374, Cr.P.C. Police Station. Mau District Chitrakoot and further prayed to release him in Criminal Case No. 197/IX of 2003, State v. Fakira, vide Case Crime No. 272 of 1996 under Section 5/25, Arms Act, Police Station Mau District Chitrakoot and the Criminal Case No. 216/12 of 2003, State v. Fakira vide Case Crime No. 110 of 1997 under Sections 5/25, Arms Act Police Station Mau District Chitrakoot.

(2.) THE genesis of the facts emanating from the prosecution in a short compendium is that the applicant was prosecuted in a case under Section 5/25, Arms Act vide Criminal Case No. 272 of 1996 in respect of an occurrence dated 8.9.1996 wherein he was arrested with country made pistol. The applicant stood for trial vide Sessions Trial No. 197/IX/2003 and offence was found to have been proved against him hence he was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, Mau Chitrakoot vide order dated 31.1.2008 awarding sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000. In default of payment of fine, the applicant had to serve out two months simple imprisonment. Against the aforesaid two orders dated 31.1.2008 in two separate cases, the applicant filed two revisions before the lower appellate court. Both the revisions were rejected by separate orders upholding the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court. After serving out the sentence in one case, an application was moved on behalf of the applicant that he may be released since he has already completed three years in respect of the sentence awarded by the trial court in one case and the sentence and conviction awarded by the trial court in the second case ought to have been treated as concurrent sentence. Report was called for by the learned Magistrate on the application moved by the applicant's wife dated 5.2.2013 and on the basis of the report of Senior Superintendent District Jail Banda dated 1.2.2013 rejected the application of the applicant vide impugned order dated 15.4.2013.

(3.) PER contra learned A.G.A. contended that the learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the application which was moved on behalf of the applicant. In respect of two distinct offences committed on different dates, the applicant was prosecuted which is evident from the report of District Jail Superintendent and in both the cases warrant was issued separately. Since the warrants to serve out the sentence were issued separately therefore, the applicant has to serve out the sentence after expiry of the sentence of the first case. The sentence in both the cases shall run consecutively after expiry of the one sentence. It was specifically mentioned in the report that in the first case vide S.T. No. 197/11/03 arising out of the Case Crime No. 272/96, the conviction will run till 14.2.2012, thereafter from 15.2.2012, sentence will start in Sessions Trial No. 216/9/03 arising out of Case Crime No. 110 of 1997 under Section 5/25 from 15.2.2012. The sentences in both the cases will conclude only on 14.2.2015 and in case of deposit of fine in both cases and if the conduct of the applicant was found to be good, he can be released prior to expiry of the aforesaid period hence the applicant is now undergoing sentence in respect of 2nd trial even if he has completed the sentence in one case. There is no illegality or perversity in the order of the learned Magistrate. The instant petition is liable to be dismissed.