RAJA DUTTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner is moved by Mr. S. S. Roy, learned Advocate for the petitioner in presence of Mr. Abhijit Addy, learned Advocate for the State. In his application, Mr. S. S. Roy, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine or Rs. 20,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for 20 days under Section 21 (h) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (in short N.D.P.S.) Act and this order was passed on 17.3.2005 by the learned Special Judge, under N.D.P.S. Act, 6th Court at Barasat in connection with Case No. N-73/04. Mr. Roy further submits that in another case being S.T. Case No. 6(8)/03 the petitioner was also convicted and sentenced on 16.3.2005 under Section 307 of I.P.C. to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for one year. The petitioner was further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine or Rs. 3,000/- in default, to suffer R.I. for six months under Section 326 of I.P.C. The order of conviction and sentence was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Barasat, North 24 Parganas in S.T. No. 6(8)/03/S.C. No. 15(8)/03 and G.R. 2550/02 dated 15.3.2005. It is submitted by Mr. Roy that against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Barasat, the petitioner preferred an appeal being C.R.A. 38 of 2006 before this Hon'ble High Court and in that appeal the petitioner preferred an application being C.R.A.N. 1569 of 2007 praying for bail and the said application was disposed of by the Division Bench which suspended the execution of sentence and directed to release the petitioner on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, North 24- Parganas. However the learned Advocate for the petitioner wanted to release the petitioner,'accused or from jail, the jail authority refused to release the petitioner on the ground that the sentence against the petitioner is still continuing. Being aggrieved by such action taken by the authority, the petitioner has preferred this application. It is submitted by Mr. Roy, learned Advocate for the petitioner that within a gap of one day the petitioner was sentenced by different Court on different counts and the sentences were not directed to run concurrently because the matter was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge, while he was passing the sentence. Mr. Roy submits that actually the petitioner has already served the sentences in Case No. N-73/04 and therefore, he should be released from the jail and for that necessary order may be given by this Court directing both the sentences passed by the different Court shall concurrently. In this connection Mr. Roy has drawn my attention to a decision reported, 1991 C. Cr. LR. (Cal) 345 (Md. Samin v. The State, Relying upon the said decision, Mr Roy submits that this Court should pass necessary order in this connection.

(2.) Mr. Abhijit Addy. learned Advocate for tile State does not oppose such contention of the 1 earned Advocate for the petitioner.

(3.) I have seen the judgment cited by the learned Advocate for the petitioner reported in 1991 C. Cr. LR (Cal) 345, which took into account the provisions of Sections 482, 426, 427 and 211 (7) of Cr.P.C. That apart, several decisions of the Apex Court which were cited before the learned Special Bench have been elaborately discussed and ultimately learned Judges accepted and applied the decision in the case of Palaniappa Gounder v. Tamil Nadu, 1977 AIR(SC) 1323