Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karar Hussain vs State Of Haryana on 1 August, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098319
CRM-M-36030
36030-2024 (O&M) -1-
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:098319
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
120
CRM-M-36030-20242024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 01.08.2024
Karar Hussain ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Arjun Lakhanpal, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section
ection
427 read
ad with Section
S 482 of Cr.P.C. making prayer for passing an order for
concurrent running of various sentences,
sentences which have been awarded to him by
the Court
ourt of learned Additional Sessions
essions Judge, Karnal, vide judgment and
conviction orders dated 21.05.2024 in the following 21 F
FIRs:
Sr. FIR Number/Date Under Sections Police Station
No.
1. FIR No. 35 dated 379 of IPC and Butana, Karnal
10.02.2021 Section 136 of the
Electricity Act
2. FIR No. 119 dated 379 of IPC and Butana, Karnal
28.03.2022 Section 136 of the
Electricity Act
3. FIR No. 266 dated 379 of IPC and Munak, Karnal
22.11.2021 Section 136 of the
Electricity Act
4. FIR No. 48 dated 379 of IPC and Munak, Karnal
14.02.2022 Section 136 of the
Electricity Act
5. FIR No. 307 dated 379 of IPC and Butana, Karnal
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098319
CRM-M-36030-2024 (O&M) -2-
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:098319
25.08.2021 Section 136 of the
Electricity Act
6. FIR No. 40 dated 379 of IPC and Munak, Karnal
01.02.2022 Section 136 of the
Electricity Act
7. FIR No. 157 dated 379 of IPC and Assandh,
24.02.2022 Section 136 of the Karnal
Electricity Act
8. FIR No. 165 dated 379 of IPC and Butana, Karnal
25.05.2021 Section 136 of the
Electricity Act
9. FIR No. 235 dated 379 of IPC and Munak, Karnal
27.09.2021 Section 136 of the
Electricity Act
10. FIR No. 283 dated 379 of IPC and Munak, Karnal
22.12.2021 Section 136 of the
Electricity Act
11. FIR No. 30 dated 379 of IPC and Munak, Karnal
18.01.2022 Section 136 of the
Electricity Act
12. FIR No. 151 dated 379 of IPC and Butana, Karnal
16.04.2021 Section 136 of the
Electricity Act
13. FIR No. 812 dated 379 of IPC and Assandh,
25.11.2021 Section 136 of the Karnal
Electricity Act
14. FIR No. 52 dated 379 of IPC and Butana, Karnal
02.02.2022 Section 136 of the
Electricity Act
15. FIR No. 29 dated 379 of IPC and Munak, Karnal
18.01.2022 Section 136 of the
Electricity Act
16. FIR No. 227 dated 379 of IPC and Taraori, Karnal
20.05.2021 Section 136 of the
Electricity Act
17. FIR No. 216 dated 379 of IPC and Munak, Karnal
10.04.2021 Section 136 of the
Electricity Act
18. FIR No. 218 dated 379 of IPC and Munak, Karnal
11.09.2021 Section 136 of the
Electricity Act
19. FIR No. 326 dated 379 of IPC and Butana, Karnal
06.09.2021 Section 136 of the
Electricity Act
20. FIR No. 225 dated 379 of IPC and Butana, Karnal
07.06.2021 Section 136 of the
Electricity Act
21. FIR No. 211 dated 379 of IPC and Butana, Karnal
25.05.2021 Section 136 of the
Electricity Act
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098319
CRM-M-36030-2024 (O&M) -3-
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:098319
2. In all the above cases, the petitioner had been held guilty for
commission of offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 months each to pay fine of
Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 05 days. Further, he was also
held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 136 of the
Electricity Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01
year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days.
3. Obviously, 21 sessions trials were conducted by the Special
Court, Karnal in respect of the aforementioned FIRs and the petitioner was
one of the accused in all these cases. In all these cases, the petitioner suffered
statements on 21.05.2024, thereby confessing to his guilt on the charges as
framed against him. After holding the petitioner guilty and awarding the
sentences as mentioned above, the learned Special Court had directed in all
these cases that the period during which the petitioner remained in custody
during investigation, inquiry and trial shall be set of against the substantive
sentences as per section 428 of Cr.P.C. Both the sentences were ordered to run
concurrently in each case .
4. Prayer in this petition has been made that sentences of the
petitioner in the above mentioned 21 distinct cases should run concurrently. It
is submitted in the petition and learned counsel for the petitioners has argued
that that since the learned Special Court did not pass any order for concurrent
running of the sentences awarded to the petitioner, as such if the sentences
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098319
CRM-M-36030-2024 (O&M) -4-
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:098319
awarded to him are to run consecutively, then the total period of sentence
awarded to him would come to 21 years in respect of the period of convictions
so awarded. Relevant to mention here is that no appeal is maintainable or lies
in any Court against an order of sentence awarded on the basis of confessional
statement of an accused. As per section 427 of the code of criminal procedure
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 of life shall commence at the expiration of
imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court
directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous
sentence. Meaning thereby that a discretion is conferred on the Court under
this provision to direct that the subsequent sentence following a conviction
may run concurrently with the previous sentence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
had interpreted the provisions of section 427 of Cr.P.C. in Mohammad Zahid
vs. State through NCB : 2021 SSC online 1183 and had made the following
observations:
"9. Thus from the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the
principles of law that emerge are as under:
(i) if a person already undergoing a sentence of
imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to
imprisonment, such subsequent term of imprisonment
would normally commence at the expiration of
the imprisonment to which he was previously sentenced;
(ii) ordinarily the subsequent sentence would commence at
the expiration of the first term of imprisonment unless the
court directs the subsequent sentence to run concurrently
with the previous sentence;
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098319
CRM-M-36030-2024 (O&M) -5-
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:098319
(iii) the general rule is that where there are different
transactions, different crime numbers and cases have been
decided by the different judgments, concurrent sentence
cannot be awarded under Section 427 of Cr.PC;
(iv) under Section 427 (1) of Cr.PC the court has the power
and discretion to issue a direction that all the subsequent
sentences run concurrently with the previous sentence,
however discretion has to be exercised judiciously
depending upon the nature of the offence or the offences
committed and the facts in situation. However, there must
be a specific direction or order by the court that the
subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous
sentence."
5. In Anil Kumar vs. State of Punjab : 2017 (1) RCR (Criminal)
691, Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case where prayer had been
made for concurrent running of sentences in two different cases against the
appellant wherein he was convicted under different provisions of Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. On considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, it was deemed appropriate to direct the sentences
imposed on the appellant in two cases to run concurrently. However, the fine
amount and the default sentences were ordered to be maintained. It was
ordered that if the fine amount was not paid then the default sentence will run
consecutively and not concurrently. Similarly in Ikram vs. state of Uttar
Pradesh and others : 2022(4) Crimes 697, the appellant-accused was tried in
nine cases for commission of offences under the provisions of Electricity Act.
He had agreed to plea bargain and was held guilty and convicted by the Court
of Additional Sessions Judge by nine separate judgments passed on a same
day. He had been confined in jail as under trial for varying periods. The trial
Judge, while awarding sentence to the accused, directed that the period of
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098319
CRM-M-36030-2024 (O&M) -6-
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:098319
custody as an under trial would be set off against the period of sentence. The
sentences awarded in the cases wherein the conviction was under two
different provisions, were ordered to run concurrently. However, there was no
order for treating the sentences to be consecutive in the ine cases. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court, while relying upon Mohammad Zahid's case (supra)
observed that since all the convictions took place on the same day and the
petitioner was granted set off within the meaning of Section 428 of Cr.P.C., as
such by not passing any direction within the ambit of Section 427 (1) of
Cr.P.C., so as to allow the subsequent sentences to run concurrently in all the
cases, miscarriage of justice was caused and, therefore, direction was given
that the sentences imposed on the appellant in nine sessions trial shall run
concurrently.
6. In the instant case also, all the above mentioned 21 cases were
decided by the same Court on the same day i.e. on 21.05.2024. The period for
which the petitioner had remained in custody during investigation, inquiry and
trial was ordered to be set off against the substantive sentence but no order for
concurrent running of sentences awarded in all these cases, had been passed.
Having considered the ,facts and circumstances of the present case, the nature
of the offences involved in all the above mentioned 21 cases, sentences
awarded, period of detention of the petitioner as on date, in my considered
opinion, the petitioner is certainly entitled for benefit of discretion contained
in Section 427 of Cr.P.C. and the same deserves to be exercised to meet the
ends of justice as it would also not be inconsistent with the administration of
justice. Accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioner to that extent is
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098319
CRM-M-36030-2024 (O&M) -7-
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:098319
allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentences awarded to the
petitioner in the above referred 21 cases would run concurrently.
7. The second prayer made by the petitioner is for waving off the
fine of Rs.200/- imposed under section 379 of IPC and fine of Rs.10,000/-
imposed under section 136 of Electricity Act, 2003 in each case and also for
waiving off the default sentence. The prayer so made by the petitioner does
not deserve to be allowed in view of the proposition of law as laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shyam Pal vs. Dayavatibaisoya and another :
AIR 2016 Supreme Court 5021, wherein it was observed that direction for
concurrent running of sentences would be limited only to the substantive
sentences and not to default sentences, wherein fine has not been paid. Similar
proposition of law was laid down in Ammavasai and another vs. Inspector of
Police and others : AIR 2000 Supreme Court 3544. Reliance can also be
placed upon Reshma Devi and another vs. State of Haryana : 2018 (2) Law
Herald 1231, wherein a coordinate bench of this Court while dealing with the
same issue had allowed the prayer of the petitioner for concurrent running of
substantive sentences but had observed that so far as the default sentences
were concerned, the provisions of Section 427 of Cr.P.C. did not direct for
concurrent running of the sentences awarded in default of payment of
fine/compensation. As such, the prayer made by the petitioner for waiving off
the fine as well as the order for undergoing default sentence on account of
non-payment of fine cannot be interfered with. Meaning thereby that the
sentences which the petitioner has been directed to undergo in default of
payment of fine shall run consecutively if he does not pay the fine. However if
he pays the same even now, he shall not be required to undergo default
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098319
CRM-M-36030-2024 (O&M) -8-
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:098319
sentences. In view of the above discussion, the petition stands partly allowed.
8. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned jail authorities for
necessary compliance.
01.08.2024 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
