GAGAN KUMAR versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2019] 3 S.C.R. 367 · Decided: 14-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
367
GAGAN KUMAR
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 266 of 2019)
FEBRUARY 14, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.31 – Sentences in cases
of conviction of several offences at one trial – Compliance of s. 31,
by the Magistrate – Held: Magistrate should specify in the order by
taking recourse to s. 31 as to whether the punishment of sentence
of imprisonment so awarded for each offence would run concurrently
or consecutively – On facts, Magistrate while passing the order of
sentence erred in not mentioning as to whether the two punishments
awarded to convict u/s. 279 and 304-A IPC would run concurrently
or consecutively – In view of the facts and circumstances of the
case, both the sentences awarded by Magistrate to run
‘concurrently’.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It was necessary for the Magistrate to have
ensured compliance of Section 31 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 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 304-A IPC. In such a
situation, it was necessary for the Magistrate to have specified
in the order by taking 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.
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.
[Paras 16-18] [370-F-H; 371-A]
1.2 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
[2019] 3 S.C.R. 367
  367
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
368
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 3 S.C.R.
corrected it. It was, however, not done and hence interference is
called for to that extent. [Para 19] [371-B]
1.3 The appellant was convicted and accordingly punished
with a sentence to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with
a fine amount of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount
to further undergo one month simple imprisonment under Section
304-A 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.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
keeping in view the nature of controversy involved in the case,
both the sentences awarded by the Magistrate to the appellant
would run “concurrently”. [Paras 20, 21] [371-C-D]
1.4 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,
there is no good ground to interfere in such finding. The finding
of conviction and sentence under both the Sections, awarded by
the Magistrate is upheld. [Paras 22, 23] [371-E, F]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 266 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.2018 of the High Court
of  Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRR No. 42 of 2018 (O&M).
Devesh Kumar Tripathi, Adv. for the Appellant.
Ms.Jaspreet Gogia, Ms.Mandakini Singh, Advs. for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order
dated 26.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh 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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
369
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 304-A of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as  “IPC”)  in CHI 88530 of 2013 by
the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,  Jalandhar by order dated 12.05.2017.
On the quantum of sentence, the Judicial Magistrate passed the following
order:
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.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.