Jahangir Alam @ Mohd. Saleem vs State
2015 Latest Caselaw 552 Del

$~10
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(CRL) 1784/2014 and Crl. M.A. No. 13704/2014
                                      Decided on 20th January, 2015
       JAHANGIR ALAM @ MOHD. SALEEM           ..... Petitioner
                   Through  : Mr. Vikas Padora, Adv.

                         versus

       STATE                                            ..... Respondent
                         Through      :Mr. Mukesh Gupta, ASC with SI
                                      Rajender Dabas, P.S. ODRS

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

A.K. PATHAK, J.(ORAL)

1.     By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read

with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code", for

short) petitioner has prayed that subsequent sentence awarded to him in FIR

No. 150/2011 shall be directed to run concurrently with the previous

sentence awarded in FIR No. 116/2009. It may be noted here that petitioner

was first convicted and sentenced in FIR No. 150/2011 and subsequently, he

was convicted under Section 411 IPC in FIR No. 116/2009. However, this

will not make any difference because, in my view, no independent petition is

maintainable for seeking relief under Section 427 of the Code.

2.     The Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jang Singh vs.



WP(Crl.) NO. 1784/2014                                     Page 1 of 3
 State of Punjab, 2007 (2) ILR (Punjab) 550, held that direction to make the

sentence to run concurrently can be exercised by the trial court or by the

Appellate Court or a Revisional Court at the time of exercising appellate or

revisional jurisdiction and no such relief can be granted by the High Court in

exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. In M.R.

Kudva vs. State of A.P. (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases 772, Supreme Court

held that Section 427 could not be applied in a separate and independent

proceedings by the High Court, more so when neither trial judge or High

Court, while passing the judgments of conviction and sentence indicated that

the sentences passed against the appellant in both the cases shall run

concurrently or Section 427 of the Code would be attracted. It was further

held that Section 482 of the Code was not an appropriate remedy in such

like cases.

3.     By following the above noted judgments, I have also taken the similar

view vide judgment dated 3rd November, 2009 passed in W.P.(Crl.)

686/2009 titled Santosh Kumar vs. The State (NCT of Delhi). It was open

for the petitioner to make such a prayer for grant of benefit under Section

427 of the Code before the trial court, at the time when subsequent sentence

was handed down to him in FIR No. 116/2009. It was also open for the




WP(Crl.) NO. 1784/2014                                      Page 2 of 3
 petitioner to have sought such a relief in appeal, had such a prayer been

declined by the trial court. Be that as it may, an independent petition

seeking benefit under Section 427 of the Code is not maintainable.

4.     Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous application is

disposed of as infructuous.



                                                   A.K. PATHAK, J.

JANUARY 20, 2015 rb