SUKHDEV RAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE limited question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the two different and distinct sentences of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner herein should be directed to run concurrently or they should run one after the other.

(2.) THE petitioner was awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/- or in default of the payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months further in a case registered under F.I.R. No. 200, Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar under Section 5 of the T.A.D.A. Act and section 25 of the Arms Act, vide a judgment dated 7.1.1991 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Designate Court, Amritsar. This sentence was awarded to the petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge, Designated Court, Amritsar, in case No. 114 of 1990. The petitioner was still sentenced to another punishment under F.I.R. No. 122 of 1974 where he was awarded to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years in May, 1988.

(3.) IN the reply of the respondents, though these facts have been confirmed but it is stated that the petitioner has to undergo sentence of eight years (total) and has to pay the awarded fine. According to the respondents, these sentences cannot be directed to run concurrently.