Sri. G. Parshwanath S/O T.G. Gogi vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 June, 2017

:1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101267/2017

BETWEEN:

SRI G. PARSHWANATH
S/O T.G. GOGI
AGE: 57 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O: SOJIGALI
GANESH TEMPLE STREET
BALLARI
… PETITIONER

(BY SRI SRINAND A PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH BRUCEPET P.S.
BALLARI
NOW REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT DHARWAD.

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT
OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON
BALLARI
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)
:2:

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ISSUE A DIRECTION TO THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO TREAT/READ THE ORDER OF
SENTENCE DATED 01.09.2003 PASSED BY THE COURT OF
PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI IN S.C.NO.91 OF 1993.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing petitioner/

accused and also learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondents/State.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/

accused under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying this

Court to issue direction to the respondent No.2 to treat/

read the order of sentence dated 01.09.2003 passed by

the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Ballari in

S.C.No.91/1993 to run concurrently and for granting

any other reliefs in the matter.

3. The averments in the petition that the

petitioner was arrayed as accused No.1 in
:3:

S.C.No.91/1993 on the file of the Principal Sessions

Judge, Ballari and it was tried for the offences

READ  Varshaben W vs State Of Gujarat on 12 April, 2017

punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 of the

I.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated

01.09.2003 acquitted accused No.1/petitioner of the

offence punishable under Section 498A and convicted

for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201

of I.P.C. After hearing on sentence, trial court sentenced

the petitioner/accused to undergo imprisonment for life

for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.

and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of

payment of fine, he shall undergo imprisonment for six

months. Further accused No.1/petitioner was sentenced

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one

year for the offence punishable under Section 201 of

I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of

payment of fine, he has to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of two months.
:4:

4. I have perused the judgment and order of

conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated

01.09.2003 in S.C.No.91/1993, so also perused the

order on the sentence.

5. Looking to the order on the sentence is

concerned for the offence under Section 302 of the

I.P.C., the petitioner was ordered to undergo

imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and

in default of payment of the fine ordered to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for six months and so far as the

offence under Section 201 of the I.P.C. he was

sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to

pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine

amount he is ordered to rigorous imprisonment for two

READ  Priyank Mehta & Ors. vs State (Nct) Of Delhi & Anr. on 21 December, 2010

months. But in the said order, the learned Sessions

Judge has not made it clear whether both the sentences

have to run concurrently or consecutively. The learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of his
:5:

contention that they have to run concurrently relied

upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in

(2016) 8 SCC 313 in the case of Muthuramalingam V/s

State and he draw the attention of this Court to Para

No.23 of the said judgment. Hence, the learned counsel

contended that when the accused is sentenced to life

imprisonment, the punishment or the sentence in

respect of other offence as against the said petitioner or

the accused necessarily shall have to run concurrently

and not consecutively.

6. I have perused the said decision of the

Hon’ble Apex Court. Apart from that the learned

Sessions Judge has not made it clear whether both the

sentence have to run concurrently or consecutively.

Hence, the contention of the petitioner here is accepted

in view of the said judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

and this Court made it clear that both the sentences

shall have to run concurrently. Accordingly, petition is
:6:

allowed. The respondent No.2 is hereby directed to read

the order of sentence dated 01.09.2003 passed by the

Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Ballari in

S.C.No.91/1993 to run concurrently.

With these observations, the petition is allowed

accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CLK

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *