M.M.S BEDI, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner Suresh Kumar was convicted and sentenced on November 19, 2011 to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and further simple imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine for a period of one month under Section 420 IPC in FIR No. 153 dated September 17, 2002, registered at Police Station Garhshanker, District Hoshiarpur by Additional Sessions Judge while confirming the order of conviction passed by the trial Court. On the same day i.e November 19, 2011, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years in another FIR No. 15 dated February 8, 2001, registered under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Garhshanker, District Hoshiarpur by the same Additional Sessions Judge.
Through instant petition, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to order running of sentences in both the cases concurrently as per Section 427 Cr.P.C Petitioner claims that he has already undergone sentence in one FIR.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. It is an admitted fact that in both the cases under Section 420 IPC, similar allegations were levelled against the petitioner of having duped complainants Bhupinder Singh and Joga Singh, prior to year 2001. The nature of the allegations in both the cases are such that there could have been a joinder of charges in one FIR.
Without going into the minute details, it is sufficient to observe that the conviction order has been finalized on a same date by the same Appellate Court. Following the judgments in Mohd. Akhtar Hussain @ Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti v. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad, AIR 1988 SC 2143 and the judgment in Pritam Singh… v. State Of Punjab…, 2007 (4) RCR (Crl.) 712, interpreting the provisions of Section 427, I deem it appropriate to order the running of sentences in both the abovesaid case concurrently. Section 427 Cr.P.C has been interpreted in judgment of Mohd. Akhtar Hussain's case (supra) by making following observations:
“The Section relates to administration of criminal justice and provides procedure for sentencing. The sentencing court is, therefore, required to consider and make an appropriate order as to how the sentence passed in the subsequent case is to run. Whether it should be concurrent or consecutive?
The basic rule of thumb over the years has been the so called single transaction rule for concurrent sentences. If a given transaction constitutes two offences under two enactments generally, it is wrong to have consecutive sentences. It is proper and legitimate to have concurrent sentences.”
It is not out of place to observe here that the petitioner had opted to file two separate revision petitions against the conviction order of the same date. One criminal revision has been dismissed on February 1, 2013 whereas second criminal revision was withdrawn on May 27, 2013.
I am of the considered opinion that if the petitioner is required to undergo consecutive sentences, he will have to spend 6 years in jail. It will be significantly harsh in case sentences are ordered to run consecutively.
Following the judgment of the Apex Court in Mohd. Akhtar Hussain's case (supra) and Pritam Singh's case (supra), the petition is allowed. Sentences in both the FIRs i.e FIR No. 153 dated September 17, 2002, registered at Police Station Garhshanker, District Hoshiarpur and FIR No. 15 dated February 8, 2001, registered at Police Station Garhshanker, District Hoshiarpur are permitted to run concurrently pursuant to the conviction order dated November 19, 2011.