Ram Parshad vs State
2005 Latest Caselaw 1538 Del

ORDER

J.P. Singh, J.

Page 2556

1. This application under Section 427 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved for directions to run the sentences in two cases concurrently. Regular criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and the order on Page 2557 sentence dated 21.1.2004 and 24.1.2004 respectively, passed by Addl. Session Judge, Delhi is pending in this Court. Another Crl.A No. 620/03 is also pending in this court.

2. I have heard Shri S.K. Sood, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant and Shri Sunil K. Kapoor, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and have gone through the file.

3. In the other Criminal A. No. 620/2003 (FIR 182/1998 under Section 489-C, IPC, PS-Malviya Nagar, Delhi), the applicant has already undergone the awarded sentence of 3 years. He was also fined Rs. 10,000/- which he did not pay and is undergoing sentence in default of payment.

4. In the present matter, vide FIR No. 443/1998 under Section 89-C, IPC, PS Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, the applicant has been awarded 3 years sentence and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, further SI for 3 months . Application for bail has been dismissed in this appeal, vide order dated 7.3.2005 passed by my learned predecessor. The applicant has already undergone a period of 25 months and is serving remaining period of 11 months and if he does not pay fine then he will further undergo SI for 3 months. It is submitted that the appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future, therefore, both the sentences may be ordered to run concurrently and consequently the applicant be released.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is reproduced here under:

Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence:

427. (1)When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.

Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under section 105C in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately.

(2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has cited Ammavassai and Anr. v. Inspector of Police reported in 2000 CRL. L.J. 4662. Briefly the facts of the said case are that the first appellant was convicted in four different cases. The occurrences in the cases took placed between 27.3.1990 and 7.5.1990. The offence against him was under Section 395 IPC and in each case he was sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years. The total years in jail would have come to 28 years. Similarly, the second appellant was convicted in five different cases, the occurrences in all the said cases Page 2558 took place between 21.10.1989 and 7.5.1990. He was found guilty under Section 395 IPC and was sentenced to undergo 7 years imprisonment in each case. The total number of years in jail were to be 35 years. The Supreme Court of India gave a via media and reduced the period of sentenced to 14 years regarding appellant No. 1 and the same measure was directed regarding the appellant No. 2.

6. The second ruling cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is tiled Mohd. Akhtar Hussain @ Ibrahim Ahmed Bharti v. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad and Anr. reported in 1988 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 921. Briefly, the facts of this case are that the appellant was a foreign national and 7000 tolas of gold was seized from him in April, 1982. He was charged under Section 80(1)(ii) of the Gold (Control) Act. He pleaded guilty and he was convicted and sentenced to the maximum imprisonment of 7 years and fine of Rs. 10.00 lakh. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the sentence but reduced the fine to Rs. 5.00 lakh. This order attained finality in the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, a further investigation was concluded against the convict and he again pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to 4 years RI with fine of Rs. 2.00 lakh. In default of payment to fine further RI for 6 months. This time maximum penalty was not imposed but the sentences were ordered to run consecutively. The High Court enhanced the sentence from 4 years to the maximum 7 years. Therefore, he was to serve in all 14 years. The Supreme Court of India opined that if a given transaction constitutes two offences under the enactment, generally it is wrong to have consecutive sentences. But this rule has no application if the transaction relating to offences is not the same or the facts constituting the two offences are quite different.

7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the appellant/applicant is a professional dealer of counterfeit currency and he is involved in at least 4 other criminal cases. Therefore, he deserves no judicial discretion or leniency. The list of the other cases is as under:

1. FIR No. 182/98 under Section 489-A, B, C & D, IPC, PS-Malviya Nagar, Delhi (convicted from the Court of ASJ S.N. Dhingra for 3 years RI & fine of Rs. 20,000/-).

2. FIR No. 16/2003 under Section 489-C & D, IPC, PS-Prashant Vihar, Delhi (acquitted from the Court of ASJ A.K. Garg on 25.1.2004).

3. FIR No. 632/98 under Section 489-C & 120-B, IPC, PS-Jind, Haryana (trial pending).

4. FIR No. 310/2002 under Section 379/420, IPC, PS-Sampla, Distt. Rohtak, Haryana (trial pending).

8. For an offence under Section 489C IPC, the maximum sentence is 7 years, or with fine or with both. Whereas in the present case and in the other case only 3 years sentence with fine has been awarded. Since fake currency is in large circulation in our country and the sentence awarded to the applicant in each case is based on different facts and relates to difference police stations, in my view, the sentence are not on the higher side and should run Page 2559 consecutively keeping in view the antecedents of the applicant. However, while dealing with this application, no detailed comments can be made on the merits of the two appeals.

9. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is dismissed.

10. Nothing said herein will tantamount to expression of opinion on the merits of the appeals.

CRL.A.165/2004

11. Registry is directed to complete the paper books and hearing of the appeals be expedited.