SARWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section 407 IPC and is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years, coupled with fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was further required to undergo simple imprisonment for five days.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not wish to press this petition on merits but only prays for making this sentence to run concurrently with the earlier sentence imposed upon him for his conviction for an offence under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, which was recorded on 31.3.2006. This fact, however, could not be brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate, who awarded sentence to the petitioner vide judgement and order dated 14.12.2006 and also before the Appellate Court, which dismissed the appeal on 5.7.2007. Now this revision has been filed against the said judgements with a delay of 1019 days, which has already been condoned by this Court on 6.7.2011.

(3.) Obviously, it seems that the petitioner has filed this revision only to see that the sentences, which are imposed on him in two different cases can be made to run concurrently. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Full Bench decision of this Court in Jang Singh V. State of Punjab, 2008 1 RCR(Cri) 323. This Court in Jang Singh's case has held that Court has discretion to convert consecutive sentences into concurrent running of sentence if the same is pending before the Court. It is further held that what principle and consideration will govern the exercise of this discretion and the guidelines to exercise discretion would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. Some indications are available in the judicial pronouncement, which are enumerated as follows: