Praday alias Rinku Mishra vs State of U.P.

Amar Saran, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.

This application has been filed with the prayer that the applicant, who has been convicted and sentenced to 7 months'' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5,000 u/s 22B of N.D.P.S. Act, and in case of default in payment of fine 4 months'' additional imprisonment in S.T. No. 114A of 2003 by a judgment dated 4.6.2007 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge/ F.T.C. 20, Allahabad and also on the same day by the same Court and the same Judge in S.T. No. 216 of 2007, the applicant has been convicted and sentenced to one year''s R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500 u/s 25 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, to one month''s additional imprisonment.

The only prayer made in this application is that this Court in exercise of its powers u/s 482, Cr. P.C. should direct sentences in both the aforesaid cases to run concurrently.

On the point whether an order, as prayed, may be passed by this Court, I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. in extenso.

Learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision in Hanoo alias Har Narain v. State of U.P. (XXXV) 1997 ACC 200: 1997 ACR 690 , which is based on the Full Bench decision in Mulaim Singh Vs. State, Under the judgment, it was observed that the High Court has inherent powers to direct that the sentences of imprisonment awarded in a subsequent conviction shall run simultaneously with the previous sentence even if the stage of revision is over, if the circumstances could serve any of the three principles mentioned in Section 561A (now Section 482, Cr. P.C.), i.e., to give effect to any order or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is argued that on the facts of the case, there was only one transaction. On 14.3.2003, the informant, Sub-Inspector alongwith constables was looking for the wanted accused. This police party when on a ''gustha'' came in front of Kundan Guest House, Allahabad, where they saw the applicant standing in front of the Kali Ji Ka Mandir, who tried to run away on seeing the police party. However, the informant and the other police personnel succeeded in apprehending him in front of the temple. It was 10.45 p.m. On enquiry, the applicant gave his name. From his possession, 85 pudias of crushed diazepam tablets, weighing 85 grams, were recovered for which he was not licensed. No public witness, however, came forward to support the raid. The material recovered was sent to the chemical examiner. However, as the applicant pleaded guilty, he was convicted and sentenced, as above.

In the same incident, at the same time and place, a country-made pistol and cartridges were also recovered from the applicant for which a separate crime was registered and separate trial followed. In this case also, the applicant pleaded guilty and was sentenced as above.

It is argued that in these circumstances the applicant was cooperating with the trials and the sentence in both the trial should have been made to run concurrently in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

I note that Chapter XXIA has also been annexed in the Code of Criminal Procedure and that plea bargaining is now increasingly being used for reducing the sentences accorded to the accused, if he cooperates with the trial by pleading guilty.

Learned A.G.A., however, pointed out that there is a decision of Full Bench of Delhi High Court in Gopal Dass v. State AIR 1978 Del 138, which holds that power u/s 482, Cr. P.C. cannot be exercised to direct that the earlier sentence would run concurrently with the subsequent sentence. The said power could only be exercised if an appeal was preferred.

However, as a single Judge I am bound by the decision of the Full Bench decision of my own Court and no decision of the Apex Court has been brought to my notice showing that the said Full Bench decision of our Court has ever been overruled. It is, no doubt, true that on facts the Full Bench decision in Mulaim Singh v. State (supra), the sentences were not made concurrent as it was observed that the incident in which the separate trials arose did not relate to the same transaction. That is not the position in the present case, where it is apparent that the applicant has been tried in two separate trials for the offences committed in the same instance at the same time and place which appear to be part of the same transaction.

It is apparent that the applicant has been tried in two separate trials for the offences committed in the same instance at the same time and place.

In view of the totality of these circumstances, I direct that the sentences awarded to the applicant in the aforesaid two trials should run concurrently.

With these observation, this application stands allowed.