GURBAX SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this order I will dispose of Crl. Misc. Petition No. 666-M of 1996; Crl. Misc. Petition No. 890-M of 1996 and Crl. Misc. Petition No. 1245-M of 1996 as in all these Criminal Misc. Petitions, the same question of law is involved, viz. whether the sentence awarded to Gurbax Singh, petitioner in Crl. Misc. Petition No. 666-M of 1996 and Shisha Singh petitioner in Crl. Misc. Petition No. 890-M of 1996 and Amrik Singh, petitioner in Crl. Misc. Petition No. 1245-M of 1996 awarded in case FIR No. 7 dated 1.1.1989 can be made concurrent with the sentence awarded in case FIR No. 164 dated 1.9.1989 by two different Courts at different trials in different Sessions cases.

(2.) IN case FIR No. 7 dated 1.1.1989, under Sections 307/326/324/323/325/149, 148 IPC, Shri Dhani Ram, Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra sentenced Gurbax Singh; Amrik Singh and Shisha Singh to undergo RI for one year each under section 148 IPC. He sentenced them to undergo RI for five years each and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- under sections 307/149 IPC. He sentenced Shisha Singh and Gurbax Singh to undergo RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each under section 326 IPC. He sentenced Amrik Singh to undergo RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each under section 326 read with section 149 IPC. He sentenced them to undergo RI for 1-1/2 years each and to pay fine of Rs. 300/- each under Sections 325/149 IPC. He sentenced Amrik Singh to undergo RI for one years each under Section 324 IPC. He sentenced Gurbax Singh and Shisha Singh to undergo RI for one year each under Sections 324/149 IPC. He sentenced them to undergo RI for six months each under Sections 323/149 IPC vide order dated 16.4.1994. He ordered the sentences to run concurrently.

(3.) IN each of these petitions, the prayer made, was contested by the State through separate written-statements filed to each of the petitions urging that the Additional Sessions Judge who passed subsequent conviction and sentence had not ordered that conviction and sentence shall run concurrently with the conviction and sentence passed earlier on 13/14.2.1991. The Superintendent, District Jail, Kurukshetra has to execute the sentences passed upon them in the manner as indicated on the warrants of commitment to jail. On the warrants of commitment to the jail, there is no indication that subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. He is to execute the sentences in the manner as indicated on the Warrants of commitment to jail.