NIRBHAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by Nirbhai Singh petitioner with the allegations which are briefly stated hereinafter. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, on January 28/30, 1980, to two years and nine months rigorous imprisonment under section 307 Indian Penal Code. He was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 27 of the Arms Act and to nine months. Rigorous Imprisonment under section 25 of the Arms Act. In addition, the petitioner was further sentenced under section 326, Indian Penal Code, to one year and nine months rigorous imprisonment. In appeal, this Court acquitted the petitioner under section 307, Indian Penal Code and convicted him under section 326, Indian Penal Code. For the said offence, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. His conviction and sentence under the Arms Act were also maintained. In a separate case, the petitioner was convicted under section 9 of the Opium Act and was sentenced to two years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -, in default of payment of fine to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for six months by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, (Judicial) Phul, District Bhatinda. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said judgment was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The contention of the petitioner is that he had been convicted and sentenced in two separate cases which had no nexus. The prayer made by the petitioner is that the sentence in both the cases may be ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and it is not disputed that it is within the competence of this Court to direct that the sentenced in two cases mentioned above may run concurrently. After giving the matter my careful consideration, I find that this is a fit case where the discretion vested in this behalf may be exercised in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the sentences imposed upon the petitioner in the two cases referred to above, are ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) THE Miscellaneous Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Petition disposed of.