OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case F.I.R. No. 25 was registered on 13.8.1985 for offences under sections 409/467/471 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station S.V.P. Gurgaon on the allegations that while posted as Secretary, Mini Bank, Siwana from 29.8.1980 to 6.8.1984 he embezzled an amount of Rs. 34,826/-. After investigation of the case, nine reports under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were submitted against him and he was tried by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jhajjar in nine separate cases. All the cases were decided on 19.11.1990 and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for different terms for each of the offence. His conviction was maintained by learned Additional Sessions Judge III, Rohtak on 20.2.1992 who decided the appeals. The petitioner filed Criminal Revision Nos. 306 to 314 of 1,992 challenging the orders of the courts below which were also dismissed on 17.7.1992. The Petitioner has now filed this Petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer that sentences awarded to him in all the nine cases may be ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The Petitioner pleaded that at the time of trial no prayer could be made for invoking the provisions of section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure nor any such prayer was made at the time of derision of the appeals and Criminal Revisions. All the nine cases were part of the same F.I.R. and the total amount involved in all the cases was Rs. 34,826/-. He had faced the litigation for the last seven years and had already undergone more than 6-1/2 months sentence.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since all the cases arose from one F.I.R. lodged against the petitioner and the petitioner had already suffered mental agony and harassment for the last more than 7 years, it was a fit case where the court should direct that the sentences in all the cases should run concurrently. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the case of Gurdeep Singh v. The State of Punjab. In this case it was observed that court had power to direct the sentences of imprisonment passed against an accused person on the same day or simultaneously in respect of different offences, to run concurrently. Keeping in view the facts of this case, I allow this petition and direct that sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner in all the nine cases arising out of FJ.R. No. 25 dated 23rd August, 1985, Police Station S.V.P., Gurgaon will run concurrently. The petitioner has 1. (1988)2 Chandigarh Law Reporter 113. already paid the amount of fine. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Petition disposed of accordingly.