GAGAN KUMAR vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL  APPEAL No.266   OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.10727 of 2018) Gagan Kumar  ….Appellant(s) VERSUS The State of Punjab       ….Respondent(s)                   J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   final judgment   and   order   dated   26.11.2018   passed   by Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2019.02.15 17:58:09 IST Reason: the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh 1 in CRR No.42 of 2018 whereby the Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant herein and affirmed the judgment and order of the Courts below. 3. The   appeal   involves   a   short   controversy   as would be clear from the facts set out hereinbelow. 4. The appellant was prosecuted and eventually convicted   for   the   offences   punishable   under Sections 279 and 304­A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860   (hereinafter   referred   to   as     “IPC”)     in   CHI st 88530 of 2013 by the Judicial Magistrate 1  Class, Jalandhar   by   order   dated   12.05.2017.   On   the quantum   of   sentence,   the   Judicial   Magistrate passed the following order: 

2

5. Felt   aggrieved   by   the   said   order,   the appellant(accused) filed CRA/324/2017 before the Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Jalander.     By   order dated   08.12.2017,   the   Additional   Sessions   Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate. 6. The appellant (accused) felt aggrieved by the aforementioned order and filed revision in the High Court of Punjab  & Haryana at Chandigarh.  The High   Court,     by   impugned   order,   dismissed   the revision   and   upheld   the   conviction   and   sentence awarded by the Courts below. 3 7. The appellant(accused) felt aggrieved and filed the present appeal by way of special leave in this Court. 8. So,     the   short   question,   which   arises   for consideration in this appeal, is whether the Courts below were justified in convicting the appellant. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   (accused) while assailing the legality and correctness of the impugned order argued only one point.  11.   The   only   submission   made   by   the   learned counsel   for   the   appellant   was   that   the   Judicial Magistrate while passing the order of sentence erred in not mentioning  therein as to whether the  two punishments   awarded   to   the   appellant   under Section   279   and   Section   304­A   IPC   would   run concurrently or consecutively.  4 12. Learned   counsel   pointed   out   that   under Section   31   of   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure, 1973(hereinafter   referred   to   as   “Code”),   it   is mandatory   for   the   Magistrate   to   specify   as   to whether   the   sentences   awarded   to   the   accused would run concurrently or consecutively when the accused is convicted for more than one offence in a trial. 13.  Learned counsel urged that since in this case the   appellant   was   awarded   two   years   rigorous imprisonment with a fine amount of Rs.1000/­  and in   default   of   payment   of   fine   amount,   to   further undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section   304­A   IPC   and   six   months   rigorous imprisonment with a fine amount of Rs.1000/­ and in   default   of   payment   of   fine   amount,   to   further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days   under Section   279   IPC,   these   two   punishments   should 5 have been directed to run concurrently as provided under Section 31(1) of the Code. 14. Learned counsel for the State, however, could not find fault in the legal position, which governs the issue, and,  in our view,  rightly. 15. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are   inclined   to   allow   the   appeal   and   modify   the order   of   the   Magistrate   dated   12.05.2017,   as indicated under.  16. In our considered opinion, it was necessary for the   Magistrate   to   have   ensured   compliance   of Section   31   of   the   Code   when   she   convicted   and sentenced the appellant for two offences in a trial and   inflicted   two   punishments   for   each   offence, namely, Section 279 and Section 304­A IPC. 17. In such a situation,   it was necessary for the Magistrate to have specified in the order by taking 6 recourse to Section 31 of the Code as to whether the punishment   of   sentence   of   imprisonment   so awarded   by   her   for   each   offence   would   run concurrently or consecutively. 18. Indeed,   it   being   a   legal   requirement contemplated   under   Section   31   of   the   Code,   the Magistrate   erred   in   not   ensuring   its   compliance while   inflicting   the   two   punishments   to   the appellant. 19. If   the   Magistrate   failed   in   her   duty,   the Additional   Sessions   Judge   and   the     High   Court should   have   noticed   this   error   committed   by   the Magistrate and accordingly should have corrected it. It was, however, not done and hence interference is called for to that extent. 20.   As   mentioned   above,   the   appellant   was convicted and accordingly punished with a sentence to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with a 7 fine amount of Rs.1000/­ and in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo one month simple imprisonment  under Section 304­A and 6 months rigorous   imprisonment   with   a   fine   amount   of Rs.1000/­ and in default of payment of fine amount to   further   undergo  15   days   simple   imprisonment under Section 279 IPC.  21. In  our  view,  having   regard   to  the  facts   and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of controversy involved in the case, both the aforementioned   sentences   awarded   by   the Magistrate   to   the   appellant   would   run "concurrently". 22.   So far as the merits of the case is concerned, when   three   Courts   have,     on   appreciation   of evidence,   found that the prosecution was able to make out a case against the appellant, we find no good ground to interfere in such finding.  8 23. Even   otherwise,   the   learned   counsel   for   the appellant   though   made   attempt   to   question   the finding on merits but not with that seriousness and, in   our   view,   rightly.   We,   therefore,   confirm   the finding of conviction and sentence under both the Sections, which is awarded by the Magistrate.    24. The appeal thus succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned order is modified only to the extent mentioned in para 21 above.  ………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                           ………..................................J.         [DINESH MAHESHWARI] New Delhi; February 14, 2019. 9