PARGAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONLY a few facts need to be stated in order to deal with the question raised in this petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code).

(2.) FOUR persons were tried under Sections 148/302/307/34 and section 404, Indian Penal Code, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, in Sessions trial No. 33 of 1979. The case related to a double murder, namely, of Hazara Singh and Rameshwar Singh, and attempt to murder two other persons, Natha Singh and Jagdish Parshad. Pargat Singh and Jagraj Singh were convicted. The remaining two accused were acquitted by the trial Court. For the murder of Hazara Singh and Rameshwar Singh the convicted accused were awarded death sentence. They were further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of 1,000/- each for attempt to murder Jagdish Parshad under Section 307/34, Indian Penal Code in default of payment of which they were further sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. They were further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to a further rigorous imprisonment for one year under Ss 307/34 for attempt to murder Natha Singh. Jagraj Singh was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 404, Indian Penal Code, for dishonestly misappropriating the gun of Rameshwar Singh deceased. In appeal and reference made for confirmation of the death sentence, this Court confirmed death sentence against Pargat Singh but awarded life imprisonment to Jagraj Singh for both the murders in question. The remaining sentences awarded by the trial Court were maintained. In SLP decided on March 24, 1982, the death sentence of Pargat Singh was converted into one for life imprisonment.

(3.) IT is not disputed that the trial Court, or appellate Court or the Supreme Court was competent to order the various sentences to run concurrently when it was seized of the case. The question is whether after the disposal of the case/appeal, it is open to this Court to make a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently in view of the provisions of section 362 of the Code. It also requires consideration whether the inherent powers under Section 48-2 of the Code can be used by the Court when there is a provision laying down a specific bar against alteration or review of a judgment or final order except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. We find that there is divergence of opinion on the above question.