The petitioner sought concurrent sentences via Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court held the petition not maintainable as appeal and revision were already decided, relying on a Full Bench judgment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No.M-28965 of 2011 Date of Decision: 21.02.2012
Kuldeep
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present:Mr. V.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.
**
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL)
This is a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C for issuance of directions with the prayer that both the sentences awarded to the petitioner by various trial Courts in different cases and on different dates be ordered to run concurrently.
It is not disputed that the appeal and revision already stands decided. Thus, the present petition is dismissed as not maintainable in view of the Full Bench Judgment rendered by this Court in the case titled as Jang Singh vs. State of Punjab reported as 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 323.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE
21.02.2012 gurpreet
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for ordering concurrent sentences is maintainable when appeal and revision are already decided.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jang Singh vs. State of PunjabReferred¶17
2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 323
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kuldeep
State of Haryana
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
