PALA SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is petition under Section 561 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Pala Singh against the State of Punjab praying for issue of direction to the Superintendent, Central Jail at Patiala for running concurrency the subsequent sentences of life imprisonment and imprisonment for one year with the previous sentence of life imprisonment.

(2.) THE petitioner was convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepore, by his judgment dated December 12, 1963. While serving that sentence, the petitioner was convicted under Section 303 read with Section 149 and Section 148, Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to death and to a term of rigorous imprisonment for one year by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, by his judgment dated January 31, 1968. A mercy petition for remission or else for commutation of sentence of death was presented on behalf of the petitioner. By order dated March 10, 1969, the sentence of death was communed into one of imprisonment for life. In the present petition, it is contended that by virtue of the provisions of sub -section (2) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the subsequent two sentences should have been directed to run concurrently with the earlier one and that it is a fit case for the omission to give that direction as enjoined by the imperative provision of sub -section (2) of Section 397 of the Code to be filed in by a direction to be given by this Court.

(3.) THE preliminary objection raised has no force whatsoever. This Court has ample power under Sections 491(1)(a) and 561 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue the type of direction prayed for. The scope of these provisions is wide enough to protect the interest of a convict by issuing the direction to carry effect the mandatory provision of sub -section (2) of Section 397 of the code. It is also contended that neither the Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment nor the President of India in his order provided for any direction under sub -section (2) of Section 397 of the Code and consequently this Court should not give any direction, which had not been given by them. The cause of action of the petitioner is this very omission to apply that mandatory provision. They having failed to apply that provision, the direction solicited has to go to make it applicable. The contention urged begs the very question raised on behalf of the petitioner and has no substance. The preliminary objection raised is overruled.