BALJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Criminal Misc. No. 72681 of 2012 in Criminal Revision No. 3854 of 2012 praying that sentence in two separate complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 be ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner Baljit Singh has been convicted in two complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; one filed by Harpal Singh and another filed by Dalip Singh pertaining to two different cheques of L 2.60 lacs dated 8.4.2003 and L 2.80 lacs dated 30.4.2003 respectively. Petitioner Baljit Singh was convicted in the complaint of Harpal Singh on 15.7.2006 and was convicted in second complaint on 27.2.2006. The conviction and sentence of one year was confirmed in first appeal on 4.5.2012 in the complaint of Harpal Singh and the sentence and conviction in complaint of Dalip Singh was confirmed on 14.7.2012. Details of the above facts indicate that the petitioner has been convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on 4.5.2012, whereas in second case, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on 14.7.2012. The short question which is re- quired to be adjudicated upon in the present case is whether sentences, which became final on 4.5.2012 and 14.7.2012 could be ordered to run concurrently as he has opted to file two criminal revisions i.e., Criminal Revision No. 3854 of 2012 and 3855 of 2012 . The instant Miscellaneous application under Section 427 read with Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by the petitioner for permitting the running of two sentences concurrently in Complaint No.116/2 of 11.11.2003 titled Dalip Singh v. Baljit Singh and Complaint No. 178/4 of 15.11.2003 titled Harpal Singh v. Baljit Singh. Vide order dated 4.12.2012, both the revision petitions have been ordered to be heard simultaneously. Since there was delay of 40 days in filing of this revision petition, notice for condonation of delay was issued to the respondents. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that petitioner is not maintaining good health. I have considered the above said circumstances to determine whether the sentences in above said two complaints could be ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The legal position in context of provision of Section 427 Cr.P.C. and its applicability to convictions in cases under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is no longer res-integra as in State of Punjab v. Madan Lal, 2009 2 RCR(Cri) 602, Hon'ble the Apex Court had an opportunity to consider the right of accused to claim the running of sentences concurrently in three cases. In Madan Lal's case, the order of the High Court ordering sentences to run concurrently in three cases was upheld by the Apex Court. The Apex Court had relied upon the majority view in State of Maharashtra v. Najakat alias Mubarak Ali, part of the judgment in Mohan Lal's case relying upon Najakat alias Mubarak Ali's case is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-

(3.) The Apex Court on appreciation of purpose of Section 428 Cr.P.C. and taking into consideration the objects and reasoning of bringing of legislative provision by referring to the observations of the Committee, observed that there are two requisites postulated in Section 428 of the Code which are as follows:- (i) The prisoner should have been in jail at least for a certain period during the stage of investigation, inquiry or trial of a particular case; (ii) The prisoner should have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment in that case;