Pritpal Singh, J.:— In this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Balbir Singh has prayed that the sentences awarded to him in three separate cases be ordered to run concurrently.
2. The Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide an order dated December 23, 1980 (Annexure P.1) convicted the petitioner under section 337, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo 7 years, rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was also convicted under section 27 of the Arms Act and 9 months, rigorous imprisonment was awarded to him. No order was passed that these sentence will run concurrently meaning thereby that the sentences were to run consecutively.
3. Subsequently, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagroan, vide an order dated August 17, 1984 (Annexure P. 2) convicted the petitioner under section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo 2 years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.
4. Lastly, the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Jagroan, convicted the petitioner on August 17, 1984 under section 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced him to undergo two years, rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2010/-, in default of payment of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for five months.
5. A Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 2158-M of 1985 (Mahal Singh v. The State of Haryana) held as under:—
“As the petitioner was tried separately for these offences and the previous conviction was not brought to the notice of the Court which convicted him subsequently, no order was passed whether the sentences were to run concurrently or consecutively. In the absence of any direction, the sentences are normally to run consecutively. The petitioner through this Criminal Miscellaneous petition has prayed that the sentence passed against him in the subsequent trial, be directed to run concurrently with the previous one.
We do not find any hindrance in our way to allow the prayer made by the petitioner. Section 427(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code clearly provides for this. It is, therefore, directed that the subsequent sentence of imprisonment passed against the petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, and affirmed by this Court vide its judgment dated 1st February, 1982, shall run concurrently with the previous one”.
6. The dictum of this judgment is fully applicable to the present case. The petitioner was tried separately in all the said three cases and there is nothing to indicate that the conviction and sentence of one case had been brought to the notice of the Court convicting him in the other case.
7. In such circumstances the Court could not consider whether the sentences were to run concurrently in all these cases or consecutively.
8. In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed and it is directed that the subsequent sentences of imprisonment passed against the petitioner by the judicial Magistrate I Class, Jagraon, vide orders (Exhibits P. 2 and P. 3) shall run concurrently with the previous sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana (Annexure P. 1). This petition stands disposed of in these terms.