BHAJNA Vs. SUPDT., CENTRAL JAIL, PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS habeas corpus petition was referred to the Division Bench by my learned brother because he considered that the question of law involved therein was of general importance and required an authoritative pronouncement. The facts briefly stated are as follows:

(2.) BHAJNA , petitioner was tried by S. Charan Singh Tiwana, Magistrate 1st Class in two separate cases, one under section 325, I.P.C., and the other under section 323, I.P.C. He was convicted in both and was sentenced to 11/2 years' rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 50/ - in the first case and one month's rigorous imprisonment in the second case. Both the cases were decided on 12 -5 -1951, but the Magistrate omitted to give direction in either case as to how the sentences were to run, that is to say, whether they were to run concurrently or one after the other. Bhajna appealed to the Court of the Sessions Juage in both the cases. His appeal in section 323 case was dismissed in entirety, but that in the other was accepted only to the extent that the term of imprisonment awarded to him was reduced to one years rigorous imprisonment. The Sessions Judge disposed of both the appeals on 11 -7 -1951, but he too did not say anything as to how the sentences were to take effect. Against the order of the Sessions Judge in the appeal arising out of 325 case, Bhajna moved this Court on the revision side. On 16 -8 -1951, Bhajna as well as the complainant applied to the Court for permission to compromise the case. The Court accorded the permission and after the case had been compounded, Bhajna's petition was accepted and his conviction and sentence were set aside. No revision petition against the order of the Sessions Judge in 323, case was preferred to this Court and accordingly Bhajna's conviction and sentence in so far as that case is concerned, stood.

(3.) THE petition is opposed by the learned Advocate General who appeared on behalf of the Superintendent of the Jail. He contends that notwithstanding the omission of the trial Magistrate to give any direction as to how the sentences awarded to the petitioner in the two cases were to take effect, they were to run one alter the other. He further contends that according to the rules contained in the Manual for the Superintendence and Management of jails, the Superintendent of Jail was competent to decide which of the two sentences was to commence first and since he decided that in the present case the sentence awarded to the petitioner in the section 325 case was to commence first and this sentence was set aside by the High Court on 16 -8 -1951, the sentence in the other case started to run from that date, and the petitioner could be released only after he had completed one month's imprisonment with effect from that date.