AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Chockalingam, J.—Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court the petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondents to produce him before this Court and set him at liberty.
The affidavit in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
The case of the petitioner is that on trial, he was found guilty by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ariyalur, in S.C. No. 116 of 2002 and was awarded life imprisonment for the offence u/s 302 of IPC with a fine and default sentence and also three years Simple Imprisonment u/s 201 of IPC with a fine and default sentence. The judgment of the trial Court was affirmed by this Court in C.A. No. 248 of 2003 by a judgment dated 12.4.2006.
It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that insofar as the sentence that was awarded by the trial Court, it would clearly state that the sentences have to be undergone separately; that when it was appealed against, it was not brought to the notice of the Court and under the circumstances, it could be well considered. The learned Counsel would further submit that he was entitled for the befit of the G.O., and hence both the sentences have got to be ordered to run concurrently.
The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions.
After doing so, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case where it could be ordered to run concurrently for the simple reason that the trial Court on trial, found him guilty under both the provisions of law as referred to above and also held that he should undergo the sentences separately. Thus it would be quite clear that the sentences were clearly spoken out. While it was appealed against, this Court also confirmed the same as given by the trial Court. It is well settled principle of law that the question of sentence which is given by the trial Court, must be brought to the notice of the trial Court for consideration after the trial is over or at the time of the appeal and not by way of invoking writ jurisdiction so as to exercise the inherent powers of this Court. Under such circumstances, it is not a fit case where the writ could be ordered. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner makes a request to the Court that he should be permitted to make a representation to the first respondent. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is no impediment for him to make a representation to the first respondent who could consider and pass suitable orders thereon. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is disposed of.