RAJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), the only prayer made is to the effect that the substantive sentence of imprisonment of 2-1/2 years, relating to FIR No. 86/1982 on 19-11-1986, for commission of offence under Section 9(1) of the Opium Act, as well as the substantive sentence of imprisonment of 9 months, relating to FIR No. 87/1982, on 29-11-1986 under Section 61 (1) of the Excise Act, awarded to the present petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, may be ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) NEITHER the trial Court, nor the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, while disposing of appeal against conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 9 of the Opium Act, gave any direction as to whether sentences awarded to the present petitioner in the aforesaid 2 criminal cases were to run concurrently, or, consecutively. Perusal of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Annexure P/1 and that of the trial Court, Annexure P/2 clearly indicate that in both the cases referred to above, recovery of contraband articles was effected from the present petitioner and his co-accused at the same time when the car in which they were travelling was intercepted at Kalanaur Sales Tax barrier on the Jagadhri Saharanpur road.

(3.) I am further supported in my view by the decision of this High Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1985(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 83, where in 39 cases registered against the accused and tried separately, various terms of imprisonment in those cases were ordered to run concurrently by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.