2011 P Cr (PLP)

ABDUL WAHEED KHAN, J.

The petitioner, who was convicted in three different cases, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. seeking concurrent running of the sentences awarded to him from two different courts.

2. The petitioner was convicted from the Court of Mr. Liaqat Ali Ranjha, Magistrate Section-30, Sialkot on 26-6-2008 in case F.I.R. No.176 of 2006 dated 22-6-2006 under section 393, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Neikapura, Sialkot City to suffer sentence of seven years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.45,000 in case of default thereof to undergo six months' S.I. and out of fine, if recovered, to pay an amount of Rs.40,000 to the complainant as compensation. He was given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. An appeal filed against the said conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 4-12-2008 and Criminal Revision filed by him before this Court also met the same fate on 8-6-2009. He was also convicted on 31-3-2009 in case F.I.R. No.104 of 2007 dated 31-3-2007 registered at Police Station, Rangpura, Sialkot under section 392, P.P.C. and sentenced to suffer five years' R.I. and fine of Rs.25,000 and in case of non-payment of tine to further undergo three months' S.I. The petitioner assailed the said judgment through an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge and the punishment awarded by the trial Court was reduced for a period of three years and the other sentence to the extent of fine was maintained. In case F.I.R. 466 of 2007 dated 25-11-2007, under" section 392/411, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Neikapura, Sialkot vide order dated 31-3-2009 of the trial Court, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to suffer five years' R.I. and fine of Rs.25,000 and under section 411, P.P.C., he was to undergo one year' S.I. with a fine of Rs.4,000 and in appeal the sentence was reduced from five years to three years' S.I. while the other sentences were maintained. The petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.1519-M. of 2010 under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. for concurrent running of aforementioned sentences, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22-9-2010. Subsequently he moved another petition Criminal Miscellaneous No.2350-M of 2010 for the same relief which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22-10-2010. Thereafter, he moved an application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot which was dismissed. This is the third petition by the petitioner before this Court with the following prayer:-- "It is humbly prayed that this petition may graciously be accepted and sentence in case F.I.R. No.176 of 2006 and other two F.I.Rs. 464 of 2007 and 104 of 2007 may kindly be ordered to run concurrently for the best interest of justice and fair play."

3. The counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the contents of the petition, submits that this Court is fully competent to exercise its jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. read with section 397, Cr.P.C. for the grant of relief.

4. Conversely, the D.P.-G. contends that the accused was sentenced to suffer sentence in different cases, so the request for running of the sentences concurrently is not tenable.

5. Arguments heard. The sentences awarded to the petitioner accused have attained finality. He was not granted any such concession during the hearing of the appeals or revision before this Court. This Court has discretion to direct the running of the subsequent sentences concurrently with earlier sentence but the same cannot be exercised mechanically as a matter of routine. It is only an exception and cannot be applied as a rule. Discretion can be exercised when the Court finds that all the offences were committed in the course of realization of common object which an accused person wanted to achieve at a particular point of time.

6. From the perusal of the judgments it manifests that the offence committed in F.I.R. No.176 of 2006 was not interconnected with the offences committed in F.I.R. No.104 of 2007 registered at Police Station, Rangpura Sialkot and in F.I.R. No.464 of 2007 registered at Police Station, Neikapura Sialkot. In the case in hand, all the offences, were committed with distinguishable and separate criminal objectives sought to be achieved at three different places and points of time. Thus it is held that a person convicted in different cases is not entitled for the running of sentences concurrently when the occurrences are not as a result of series of acts towards the commission of offence, the same are not interconnected and the date, time and place of occurrence are entirely different.

7. For the reasons mentioned supra, the petitioner is not entitled running of his sentences concurrently in the aforementioned three cases. The petition stands dismissed. N.H.Q./A-135/L Petition dismissed.