BALJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who has been sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment in three different FIRs, has filed the present petition seeking direction for making these sentences to run concurrently. The petitioner, who was tried and sentenced to suffer six months RI in FIR No. 270 dated 2. 10. 1996 registered under Section 61/1/ 14 of Punjab Excise Act, 1914, was further tried in criminal complaint no. 107-2 of 2000 under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to suffer RI for one year. Thereafter, he was tried for an offence under Section 15 of NDPS Act in FIR No. 345 dated 23. 10. 2003 and awarded sentence of eight years RI. Since there is no order for making these sentences to run con-currently, jail authorities have directed that the sentences awarded to the petitioner in all these cases would run one after the other and not concurrently. Present petition is filed seeking direction for making these sentences to run concurrently in view of the provisions of Section 427 Cr. P. C.

(2.) IN the reply filed by the State, prayer made by the petitioner has been opposed. It is mainly submitted that three sentences have been awarded by the Court in different three cases and in view of the provisions of section 427 Cr. P. C. , these sentences are to run one after the other. Counsel for petitioner, however, would place reliance on number of judgments reported as Hari Chander alias Gura v. The State of Punjab, (1973-77)Suppl. Vol. V (2) CLR 18; Nirbhai Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1983 (1)RCR (Crl.) 620; Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, 1986 (2) RCR (Crl.)566; Harchand Singh alias Chand Singh v. State of Punjab, 1987 (1)RCR (Crl.) 177; Kewal Singh v. State of Punjab, 1987 (1) RCR (Crl.)662; Jagat Ram v. State (UT Chandigarh), 1987 (2) FAC 267 : 1987 (2)RCR (Crl.) 269; Mehal Singh y. State of Haryana, 1987 (2) RCR (Crl.)240; Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 1987 (2) FAC 254 : 1988 (1)RCR (Crl.) 114; Sher Singh v. State of M. P. , 1989 (1) RCR (Crl.) 696; karnail Singh alias Fakir Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1990 (2)RCR (Crl.) 103; Rajinder Singh v. State of Haryana, 1991 (1) RCR (Crl.) 590; Ram Chander v. The Inspector General of Prison, Punjab, 1995 (3) RCR (Crl.) 228 and Mohan Bhanudas Mohite v. State of maharashtra, 2004 (3) Criminal Court Cases 762 where in similar situation, directions were issued for making the sentences to run concurrently instead of one after the other. Balbir Singh's case (supra) was almost identical in facts to the facts of this ease. In Balbir Singh's case also, the accused was tried separately in three different criminal cases and was convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment in all the three cases. The accused in the said case also approached this Court seeking direction that all the three different sentences awarded to him be made to run concurrently. Keeping in view the law laid down in various judgments noticed above, the prayer of the accused in Balbir Singh's case was allowed. Thus, the case of the present petitioner is completely covered the ratio of law laid down in Balbir Singh's case (supra ).

(3.) FOLLOWING the law laid down in the aforementioned judgments, the present petition is allowed. It is directed that the sentences awarded to the petitioner in three different cases FIR No. 270 dated 2. 10. 1996 under Section 61/1/14 of Excise Act registered at Police Station Sadar Sirsa; complaint under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954 and FIR No. 345 date 23. 10. 2003 under Sections 15 and 16 of NDPS Act registered at Police Station Sadar Sirsa would also run concurrently. Petition allowed.