SURESH CHAND Vs. AJIT SINGH DAHIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of impugned order dtd. 7/10/2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No.187 of 30/11/2019 (Annexure P-l) in FIR No.255 dtd. 1/9/2002 registered under Ss. 302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as "the IPC") r/w Sec. 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 1959), at Police Station City Sonipat, vide which the application filed by respondent No.l-Ajit Singh Dahiya under Sec. 353 read with Sec. 362 of Cr.P.C. had been allowed and it had been observed that the sentences which had been awarded to the petitioner in the abovesaid FIR will be deemed to run consecutively and the conviction warrant sent to the Jail Authorities dtd. 29/11/2006, vide which the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, could not be taken into consideration.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, petitioner-Suresh Chand alongwith two other persons namely Sonu @ Viresh and Shiv Parkash @ Poli were tried in FIR No.225 dtd. 1/9/2002 registered under Ss. 302/307/34 of the IPC and Sec. 25 of the Act of 1959 at Police Station, City Sonepat and vide judgment dtd. 23/11/2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, the petitioner alone was convicted under Sec. 302 of the IPC and under Sec. 25 of the Act of 1959 and was sentenced vide order of sentence dtd. 29/11/2006 in the following manner:- Under Sec. 302 IPC

(3.) Reference has also been made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner to the reply (Annexure P-11) filed by the present petitioner, who was respondent No.4 in the said proceedings, in order to highlight the fact that there was no forgery in the Conviction Warrant and the said Warrant had been signed by the Presiding Officer, who had passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Specific reference has also been made to para 2 of the said reply, where it has been stated that when prosecution is based on a single transaction involving two or more offences, sentences are to run concurrently. Further reference has been made by the Ld. Senior Counsel to the custody certificate (Annexure P-12) of the petitioner dtd. 10/11/2021, as per which as on 10/11/2021, the petitioner had already undergone actual sentence of 18years, 8 months and 18 days and had undergone the total period, including remission, of 25 years, 2 months and 19 days. It is further contended that when the petitioner, after having suffered the said incarceration, was in the process of being released, the present application had been filed, on the basis of which, the impugned order had been passed.