Balwinder Singh @ Bindu vs State of Punjab

Daya Chaudhary, J.—Petitioner-Balwinder Singh @ Bindu along with co-accused Sukhraj Singh faced trial in case FIR No. 6 dated 8.1.2007 registered under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC at Police Station Gardhiwala. Co-accused-Sukhraj Singh was acquitted of the charge under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC, whereas, the present petitioner was convicted u/s 498-A and was acquitted of the charges under Sections 406 and 506 IPC by the trial Court vide judgment dated 31.10.2012 and was sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further under RI for one month. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by trial Court was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, which was dismissed on 6.3.2013. After loosing the case before the courts below, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition along with an application u/s 427 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for running the sentences concurrently as the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for one year in one more case i.e. FIR No. 63 dated 20.3.2008 registered u/s 18 of NDPS Act at Police Station Sadar Phagwara. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has raised various arguments to contest conviction but ultimately submits that he does not want to contest the conviction of the petitioner and would be satisfied if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a poor man, is facing the agony of protracted trial since 2007 and some lenient view be taken on the quantum of sentence. Learned counsel further submits that no order of running the sentences concurrently was passed by the trial Court or the appellate Court upto now and the petitioner has undergone one year and one month of actual sentence and during trial also he remained in custody for 25 days. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgments of Full Bench of this Court in Jang Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2001 (1) RCR (Criminal) 323 as well as Mohan Lal Vs. State of Punjab and another 2011 (7) RCR (Criminal) 2503, wherein, it has been held that an application for running sentences concurrently can be moved even during pendency of the revision petition.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not disputed the custody period.

Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused judgments of both the courts below and other documents available on file.

Admittedly, the petitioner has lost before the courts below and after raising arguments to contest conviction, learned counsel has restricted his prayer qua to quantum of sentence only in case the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Undisputedly application u/s 427 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for running of sentences concurrently can be moved even at the time of filing revision petition. Accordingly, the request of learned counsel for the petitioner for running the sentences concurrently is accepted and both the sentences i.e. one in case FIR No. 6 dated 8.1.2007 registered under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC at Police Station Gardhiwala and other in FIR No. 63 dated 20.3.2008 registered u/s 18 of NDPS Act at Police Station Sadar are ordered to run concurrently. Since the petitioner has already faced agony of trial since registration of FIR i.e. 8.1.2007 and has undergone sentence for a period of one year and twenty eight days as on 29.6.2013 as reflected in the custody certificate, is a very poor person having no criminal background and is the only bread earner in the family, the present revision petition is disposed of, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner u/s 498-A IPC, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is ordered to be reduced to the period already undergone by him. He is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.