NANDKISHORE Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition u/s 482 of CrPC has been filed by the applicant Nandkishore whereby praying for order by this Court directing his sentences to run concurrently passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, in ST No. 611/1991, convicting u/s 306, 304B of IPC, dated 18.1.1999, sentenced to RI for seven years and fine of Rs. 500/-. This sentence has been completed by the applicant Nandkishore on 4.6.2004 and another conviction u/s 307 of IPC, judgment and finding dated 2.3.2000 passed by XII Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, in ST No. 3/99 and sentenced to RI for five years and fine of Rs. 500/-. Against this conviction, the applicant had also filed Criminal Appeal No. 569/2000 which has been dismissed by the High Court vide judgment dated 29.3.2004.

(2.) THE L.C. has submitted that u/s 482 read with 427 of CrPC, this Court has power to order for running of his both the sentences mentioned hereinabove concurrently. In support of his contention, the L.C. has placed reliance on a judgment passed by Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court passed in a case of V. Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1987 CrLJ 1621] and another judgment rendered by Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Akhtar Hussain @ Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti v. Assistant Collector of Customs [AIR 1988 SC 2143].

(3.) IN view of the above mentioned law laid down by the Supreme Court, the applicant cannot get benefit of section 427 of CrPC because he was not convicted for both the offences committed by him in the same transaction or the same facts constituting the two offences. Both the offences are quite different and also committed by the applicant on different dates. He was convicted u/s 306, 304B, IPC, this offence is the offence of commission of dowry death and abatement to commit suicide by wife of the applicant. It was committed in the year 1991 or prior to that whereas the offence u/s 307 of IPC is attempt to commit murder. This was also committed on a different date. Both the offences were not committed by the applicant in one and the same transaction and both were not depending on same facts. Therefore, applying the test as laid down by the Supreme Court mentioned hereinabove, no case is made out in favour of the applicant to order for running his sentence concurrently passed by two different Sessions Courts as mentioned in this order hereinabove. Hence this petition is dismissed having no merit.