Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh Kumar @ Kaka vs State Of Punjab on 4 November, 2025
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
CRM-M-16419 of 2020 (O & M)
::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(270)
CRM-M-16419-2020 (O & M)
Date of decision: 04.11.2025
Ramesh Kumar alias Kaka ...... Petitioner(s)
V/s
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr.Lupil Gupta, Advocate,
with Mr. Sanjeet Sood, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).
Ms. Nav Reet K. Barnala, AAG, Punjab.
*****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
The prayer in this petition is under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read
with Section 427 Cr.P.C. is for issuance of directions that the sentence
imposed upon the petitioner vide two separate judgments dated 04.10.2019
(Annexure P-1) and 03.01.2020 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Judge, Special
Court, Mansa, be ordered to run concurrently.
2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.22 dated
16.03.2015 under Sections 15, 61, 85 of the NDPS Act, 1985, Police Station
Sardulgarh, District Mansa came to be registered against the petitioner. He
came to be convicted and sentenced by the Court of Judge, Special Court,
Mansa vide a judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
04.10.2019 as under:-
1 of 4
CRM-M-16419 of 2020 (O & M)
::2::
Offence Under Sentence Fine In default of
Section payment of fine
15(b) of the NDPS RI 02 years Rs.10,000/- RI 06 months
Act
3. Later, his appeal came to be admitted and he was granted the
concession of suspension of sentence.
4. The petitioner also faced Trial in FIR No.79 dated 09.10.2017
under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985, Police Station Jourkian, District
Mansa. He came to be convicted and sentenced by the Court of Judge,
Special Court, Mansa vide a judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 03.01.2020 as under:-
Offence Under Sentence Fine In default of
Section payment of fine
22(b) of the NDPS RI 04 years Rs.10,000/- RI 06 months
Act
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
sentences imposed upon the petitioner in both the cases be ordered to run
concurrently otherwise, the petitioner would have to undergo 02 years
rigorous imprisonment in the first case and, thereafter, 04 years rigorous
imprisonment in the second which would cause great injustice to him.
6. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends
that a reading of Section 427 Cr.P.C. would show that the sentence in each
case is to run consecutively. Even otherwise, the petitioner is a habitual
offender with multiple other cases of a similar nature registered against him.
Therefore, he prays that the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2 of 4
CRM-M-16419 of 2020 (O & M)
::3::
8. It would be apposite to refer to the provisions of Section 427
Cr.P.C., which are reproduced as under:-
Section 427 Cr.P.C.: Sentence on offender already
sentenced for another offence
(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 122 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.
9. A perusal of Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. would reveal that where a
person is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, on a subsequent
conviction, is sentenced to further imprisonment then the two sentences
imposed upon the convict would run consecutively unless the Court directs
that the subsequent sentence would run concurrently with the said previous
sentence.
10. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner was convicted and
sentenced for 02 years rigorous imprisonment after being convicted in the
Trial emanating from the FIR No.22 dated 16.03.2015 under Sections 15,
3 of 4
CRM-M-16419 of 2020 (O & M)
::4::
61, 85 of the NDPS Act, 1985, Police Station Sardulgarh, District Mansa.
He later faced Trial emanating from FIR No.79 dated 09.10.2017 under
Section 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985, Police Station Jourkian, District Mansa
and came to be convicted and sentenced for a period of 04 years. He is a
habitual offender with multiple cases registered against him, though, in some
of which he has been acquitted. There is absolutely no connection between
his conviction in the first case and that in the second. Therefore, there is no
justifiable reason for this Court to order that the sentences imposed in both
the aforementioned cases to run concurrently.
11. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and
the same stands dismissed.
12. This petition stands disposed of.
13. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
November 04, 2025
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
