MALAK SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole grouse of the petitioner in this petition filed under the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is that the subsequent sentence awarded on 13-5-1985 for offence under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, should run concurrently with imprisonment for life which the petitioner was already undergoing under the orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 7.6.1980. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record.

(2.) A perusal of copy of the judgment Annexure P. 1 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 7-6-1980 leaves no doubt that the petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to certain short terms of imprisonment under the provisions of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for the incident regarding which the case was registered on 23.1.1980. The copy of the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana (Annexure P. 2) reveals that the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 500/- by the said Court vide its order dated 13-5-1985 for the alleged possession of some illicit liquor on 28-12 1977. Under these circumstances there is absolutely no doubt that the petitioner was already undergoing sentence of imprisonment for lift in a murder case. When the subsequent sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment was awarded in an excise case although in point of time, the possession of liquor related to a period earlier to the commission of the murder.

(3.) A bare glance through the above referred provision leaves no doubt that the relevant consideration is the type of sentence which the petitioner was undergoing earlier when the subsequent sentence is awarded. Subsection (1) of Section 427 provides that if a person already undergoing sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction or imprisonment for life or any short-term imprisonment, then both the sentences shall run consecutively, i.e., one after the other. The proviso appended to sub-section (1) further shows that if any person is undergoing sentence in default of furnishing security under Section 122 of the Code and is sentenced subsequently to another imprisonment then both the sentences shall run consecutively, whereas Sub-section (2) of this section clearly provides that if a person is already undergoing imprisonment for life and it subsequently awarded imprisonment for life or short sentence, then both the sentences shall run concurrently.