: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
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
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
