ULFAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prisoner Ulfat was convicted for an offence under Section 395, I. P. Code by the Sessions Court at Aligarh on 11-5-1962 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of tun years. He filed an appeal from jail which was put up before me in Chambers and was dismissed by me on 31-10-1962. However, in the mean-time Uifat had been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Mathura for an offence under Section 395, I. P. C. and sentenced to six years' Rule I. on 29-9-1962. His appeal from jail against the latter conviction was also dismissed by me in Chambers on 11-12-1962. It appears that when the Sessions Judge of Mathura recorded the conviction of Ulfat and sentenced him to six years' Rule I. it was not brought to his notice that Ulfat was already undergoing a term of imprisonment under a previous conviction. No orders under Section 397, Criminal Procedure Code were passed, When I dismissed the appeal of Ulfat against his subsequent conviction and maintained the sentence there was no information laid before me that the appellant was already undergoing imprisonment under a previous conviction. The prisoner Ulfat then submitted this application from jail praying that his sentence for the subsequent conviction be made concurrent with the sentence awarded to him in the previous conviction. The papers were laid before me in Chambers on 28-9-1986 and I directed that a query be made from the Government Advocate in the matter. By my order dated 4-10-1966 I further asked the Government Advocate whether this Court had jurisdiction and competency to make the sentence concurrent at this stage. The learned Assistant Government Advocate submitted a note to the effect that no application under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code would lie after this Court had dismissed the appeal and this Court had no power or jurisdiction in the matter. Since I had some doubts I made an order on 6-6-1967. that the matter be heard in Court and notice be issued to the prisoner fixing a date and asking him to arrange for his representation. 1 further ordered that if the prisoner was not in a position to engage a counsel, the Court will appoint an amicus curiae,

(2.) MEANWHILE, the office of the High Court put before me cases of two other prisoners, Sampu and Shyam Lal, in which similar question arose. The opinion of the learned Government Advocate was sought in these cases also and the submission was made that this Court had no jurisdiction left in the matter, I directed these cases also to be listed along with the matter of Ulfat.

(3.) ON 19-5-1967. when I found that the prisoners had not been able to arrange for their representation through a counsel, I appointed Sri S. K, Sahai, Advocate, to appear as amicus curiae and to assist the Court. All the three cases have been put up before me today for orders.